[amit_m]

The waste produced by a nuclear power plant is orders of magnitude less than what a coal power plant produces. Even if we only look at radioactive waste - coal power plants produce more of it, only instead of being stored in a special underground site it is dispersed into the atmosphere giving us cancer.

So yes, nuclear waste is a serious issue, but let's not forget that the alternatives have major environmental costs as well.

(not from the US)

[TazeTSchnitzel]

Nuclear waste is orders of magnitude less in volume but orders of magnitude more dangerous, to the point we have to plan to keep it out of reach for literally millenia.

[iwwr]

There are several aspects to this.

1. Nuclear waste, even when not processed, is not that large in volume and it can be stored in a space on the order of a hectare (about 2.5 acres) for the entire US nuclear waste production over several decades. Consider the comparative amount of storage needed for just coal ash, as well as the environmental hazards that presents.

2. The reason the US does have comparatively more waste is because the government forbids any reprocessing of nuclear fuel. For example, merely separating out the more radioactive isotopes, you can greatly reduce the volume. Reprocessed fuel can also be partially reused in a nuclear reactor and the French have great experience with that.

3. Even reprocessed "spent" fuel can be useful in 3rd and 4th generation reactors. Spent fuel today is still a valuable future resource, so it needn't be buried and guarded for millennia afterwards.

4. Natural nuclear fuel usage can be greatly more effective with nuclear breeding, which can turn non-fissile U-238 and Th-232 into the fissile U-235 and U-233 respectively. Right now, what's actually burned is mainly U-235, an extremely rare isotope (the minor constituent of "natural uranium") and that's comparatively as rare and expensive as platinum. Breeding can increase the energy obtained from the same quantity of fuel by 10-100 times.

[cm2187]

The other point that we tend to forget about nuclear waste is that it is not only minuscule in term of size, but it can also be confined. When a factory releases gas in the atmosphere, we loose control of this gas.

To me the main problem with nuclear energy is not the waste, which even if we never intend to recycle is such a tiny volume that being afraid of it is like an elephant being afraid of a mosquito. The problem is rather the chernobyl/Fukushima risk.

I am not a specialist but I understand that switching to Thorium could reduce a lot that risk. Most nuclear reactors around the world have been built in the 60s/70s. I would expect that if we decide to replace them, there would be a sufficient critical mass to justify the cost of moving away from uranium.

[mpweiher]

> The problem is rather the chernobyl/Fukushima risk.

The risk from these types of accidents is less than the toll from fossil fuels in normal operation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_...

For Fukushima: ".. no confirmed casualties from radiation exposure.." "no evidence to support the idea.. will lead to an increase in cancer rates or birth defects".

[cm2187]

The problem is that these accidents have actually happened even in countries that were deemed to be "serious" (Soviet Union, Japan). The cost of having a whole region devastated and becoming a no man's land for several dozen years is I think unacceptable, particularly if it is avoidable with alternative nuclear fuels.

[ams6110]

I would not put the USSR and Japan in the same league as far as concern for environmental or human safety in the operation of nuclear reactors. Fukushima was the result of a confluence of unlikely natural events. Chernobyl was not an accident, it was caused by an intentional experiment deliberately conducted against the better judgment of the plant operations staff.

[kuschku]

Especially because we had in Germany several reactors (which also tended to have issues) of the same design as Fukushima-1, for example Krümmel, Brunsbüttel, Philippsburg, Isar-

[DasIch]

The toll from fossil fuels is however much easier to deal with. The worst case scenario for a nuclear reactor failure in Germany, is that there is no Germany afterwards.

[mpweiher]

That's a big claim. Do you have big evidence to back it up?

Take into consideration that 2 nuclear bombs dropped on Japan did not cause Japan to not exist afterwards. In fact, the damage and death toll from those two bombs was less than from the wholly conventional Tokyo firestorm.

Yes, nuclear technology is a big lever, and yes, big levers are dangerous. But it's simply not as earth-shatteringly more dangerous as people believe.

Remember that there have been no deaths so far from the Fukushima meltdown, which was about as bad as you can imagine, with bad siting, bad technology, bad safety precautions, awful handling etc. At the same time, the Tsunami that caused the meltdown did cause over 15000 deaths.

[sillygeese]

That's all fine, but for example Fukushima is still not under control, and may still cause enormous harm.

That kind of stuff is why we need to get rid of nuclear power altogether. All that's holding us back is politicians and their bribes.. and of course, to a lesser extent, people who rationalize not moving away from nuclear power.

[Asbostos]

Fukushima was an unsafe design. Chernobyl was both an unsafe design and being operated in an obviously risky and neglegent way when it failed. These kinds of disasters won't happen with more modern reactors that already exist. Even if they do, making a few permanent wildlife reserves in the irradiated areas isn't a global catastrophe. The world is full of uninhabited and uninhabitable places.

[kuschku]

> Fukushima was an unsafe design

Fukushima was a standard design. Built by European and US companies in the same style as dozens of plants in Germany.

This is not "Fukushima was unsafe". If you say "Fukushima was unsafe", then half of Germany’s reactors are unsafe.

Shutting them down was the only option.

> making a few permanent wildlife reserves in the irradiated areas isn't a global catastrophe

You are talking about Japan. A country with one of the highest population densities worldwide. Declaring a whole province – and one with lots of history – off-limits is not going to happen. Currently they’ve been digging out the ground in half of the province.

----------

EDIT: Some more info:

Fukushima was a Boiling Water Generator built by General Electrics. Reactors of the exact same design are Krümmel (Germany), Brunsbüttel (Germany), Philippsburg (Germany), Isar (Germany). Krümmel and Brunsbüttel had constant issues, including the town next to it having the highest cancer rate on the planet.

The same design used by Fukushima is described in Wikipedia as "the second most common type of electricity-generating nuclear reactor".

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunsb%C3%BCttel_Nuclear_Power...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kr%C3%BCmmel_Nuclear_Power_Pla...

- https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuk%C3%A4miecluster_Elbmarsch

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Powe...

[mpweiher]

>> Fukushima was an unsafe design

> Fukushima was a standard design.

The design was unsafe. The company knew this. In fact it had been known for 35 years. It was not unfixably unsafe, and in fact 5 of the 10 reactors had been upgraded. These 5 shut down properly during the Tsunami and survived without problems.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023048879045763955...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-general-electric-knew...

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/16/fukushima-reactor-flaws-...

The main design flaw was that the vital emergency cooling equipment was sited in an unprotected building outside the protected reactor. This is especially troubling if you site your reactor on a Tsunami-ridden coast. It's less of a problem in the middle of Germany, where there are no Tsunamis. Or to put it another way: if you have a Tsunami reaching the middle of Germany, a meltdown at these powerplants is going to be among the least of your problems.

[kabdib]

1960s design, things have improved.

Of course, it is hard to demonstrate improvements, especially when nuclear power is so demonized.

[DasIch]

I'm sure that the people behind Chernobyl and Fukushima were no less convinced that the design was safe and operated perfectly fine, than you are convinced that modern reactors are safely designed and operated correctly.

[rosser]

All that's holding us back is politicians and their bribes..

No, unfortunately, that's not all that's holding us back. There are still some pretty substantial, e.g., storage and transmission problems with the renewables.

Unless you want us to keep burning coal or some other nonsense like that...

[kuschku]

There are no storage or transmission problems. Build hydro-pump-storage plants, and you fixed the storage issues.

Build power lines from everywhere to everywhere, and refit transformer stations to be up to the load of users producing more than using, and you fix that, too. (Incidentally, in Germany we’re having a huge debate about a huge powerline currently, NIMBY is one of the worst things that happened)

[mpweiher]

> Build hydro-pump-storage plants, and you fixed the storage issues.

You do realize that the largest ever energy-generation accident was a dam failure? 171000 people killed in 1975 when a dam in China failed. And overall, hydroelectric facilities claim 94% of the fatalities of energy-production accidents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities

[maccard]

And coal mines, oil/gas rigs have perfect safety records?

[TazeTSchnitzel]

They don't, but when they do go wrong the consequences are less severe.

[Asbostos]

That's debatable. Coal is known to cause far more deaths than nuclear. Even Fukushima was nothing compared to the 10's of thousands killed by the tsunami.

[rayiner]

Coal irradiates far more people than nuclear even when it's operating properly.

[mpweiher]

While this is how many people feel, the facts say quite the opposite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_...

[iso8859-1]

You forget all the people killed through air pollution.

[hueving]

This was a solved issue with Yucca Mountain in the US, but then fear mongering and political back-peddling caused it to be blocked at the last minute. Nuclear plants had to help pay for its development and then got screwed when it came time for the payoff.

[mikeash]

How long does it take non-nuclear waste to decay? For many types of dangerous waste, the answer is "forever." Yet we treat the nuclear stuff as being much worse. Why is that?