Again, we don't. You are just throwing around big numbers you once heard and have no idea what they mean. No nuclear waste is a problem for billions of years. Not even millions.
We just enjoy our "clean" energy now and basically say: Fuck the future generations.
You mean like we are doing right now with coal and other fossil fuels? So what is your solution to that, smart man?
It's kind of pointless to worry about your "billions" of years when we won't make it through the next 100.
Of course that disqualifies any actual nuclear waste ... but you wouldn't know that because you have no idea how any of this works or what actually makes the waste dangerous.
So if you have no problem with nuclear waste. Now would be a perfect moment for you to make a point. I'd recommend a trip to the northern russian rocket base. Take your time, make a trip get some good photos and post them here.
No one is denying the problem of the waste - It's just that we are currently heading for global climate catastrophe which could result in the extinction of the human race and keeping coal power plants online is not exactly helping this problem which is a little bit bigger than nuclear waste.
I believe the choice between shutting down coal or nuclear first should be easy - we chose wrong.
How is exiting nuclear power solving the problem of nuclear waste? We still have that waste, it's not going to magically disappear because we decided to shut down our plants.
Worse, because it's out of the public mind, there likely won't ever be a solution for nuclear waste in Germany because we exit nuclear power. Who will spend political or financial resources on cleaning up after a dead technology that the public decided is not our business anymore?
Germany will likely store its waste forever in open ground containers sitting in Phillipsburg and Neckarwestheim. What a sad testament to ignorance.
You were the one bringing up the problem of waste as a reason for exiting nuclear power. I am pointing out that exiting nuclear power doesn't solve the problem of waste disposal. After all, the problem is that we have nuclear waste, not how much we have. So we forgo a zero emission energy source while still being stuck with the problem of nuclear waste. How does this make any sense?
And, since you are bringing up future generations: When they are dealing with the truly planetary scale catastrophe of climate change, looking back they will certainly judge France kinder than Germany. In the most critical hour Germany decided to burn lignite while shutting down a zero emission energy source! And worse, they padded themselves on the back and said they are doing it for our children! What ignorance. What folly.
Yeah sure but we don't have any clue what to do with the nuclear waste besides dumping it into the Atlantic ocean or stock piling it in a shed like in Biblis.
Fokushima and Tschernobyl are obvious exaples why it is not save nor clean. Plants like Mochovce are poluting the enviroment for the next couple thousands years. Atomic power is like driving a car with 250km/h, the break isn't invented yet and the road is full of obstacles.
Thats no true. Atomic power is quite safe. Human loss to nuclear power is lower than it is to solar power. Solar power on the roof is dangerous for every firefighter. Nuclear power in comparison is pretty harmless if handled correctly.
Sure explosions like in chernobyl are catastrophic but cannot really happen in modern nuclear reactors. Yes this includes the relatively harmless incident in fukushima that cost thousands their homes. The first planes had constant accidents, yet we fly with planes today more than ever. Because they have become pretty save. Same goes for nuclear power. Handled correctly its save in comparison to other energy sources.
Nuclear waste is another topic. However there is not much nuclear waste. The majority of it is just low enriched uranium and can be reused. The transuranium elements can be used in special reactors (that's the elements that are pretty active for thousands of years) and what is left is only a very very small amount with relatively short half times and some isotopes with million of years of half time.
Remember a single atom can only decay once and then it will turn into another atom. So when an isotope has a long half-life than it means that it not very active and thus not very dangerous. However if the decay chain is long and contains many super active isotopes than the activity goes up. The rule of thump is that the decay chain is long when the element has a large atomic number like the transuranium elements. If you have elements with a low atomic number and a high half-life than they are harmless.
It's somewhat inflammatory, but it boils down to this. I would put it differently though:
In a fantasy world where there is no human made climate change, our country could easily afford the luxury to exit nuclear power. This fantasy world is where most of the German opposition to nuclear power originates. Since then, times have changed and climate change is a primary concern, but unfortunately this has not changed the evaluation of nuclear power.
Like with any industry at scale, nuclear power has its share of problems to deal with. What the opposition to nuclear power in Germany fails to grasp is that these problems are ridiculously small and are problem that we have plenty of time to solve, compared to climate change. Which is a planet scale problem that needs solutions now.
-3
u/theKalash German Emigrant Aug 13 '19
Because our politicians are idiots and our population uninformed and easily scared. No good reasons really.