[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-

[mpweiher]

Except these weren't sited directly on a Tsunami-prone coast with their emergency backup generators below the line of the floodwaters.

But yes, more modern reactors would be better, but these aren't being built.

[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.

[mikeash]

I agree with your position but comparing to bombs is not a good comparison. Nuclear reactors contain far more fissile material than the bombs dropped on Japan. Of the two, Little Boy had by far the most fissile material, with 140lbs of U235. By contrast, a nuclear reactor will contain many tons of fissile material. The possibility for widespread long-term contamination of the landscape is therefore much greater.

Again, I think you've reached the right conclusion, but looking at the lack of long-term damage from the bombs doesn't tell us anything either way about the potential for damage from a reactor.

[mpweiher]

You missed two things:

1) I wrote "take into consideration". That means that this is something to consider, not something that proves my thesis conclusively. So your criticism is misplaced.

2) You also miss the fact that bombs are designed to cause as much damage as possible, whereas reactors are designed to contain damage as much as possible. A candle contains much more energy than a stick of dynamite, yet the former is far more damaging.

[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.

[sillygeese]

Well the way for a reactor to "demonstrate an improvement" over Fukushima would be to withstand the same kind of earthquake + tsunami that Fukushima didn't.

It doesn't make sense to say it's hard to demonstrate improvements when it's not even under our control.

But demonizing nuclear power has nothing to do with it.

[mpweiher]

> Well the way for a reactor to "demonstrate an improvement" > over Fukushima would be to withstand the same kind of > earthquake + tsunami that Fukushima didn't.

Gee, what a great idea! In fact, a slightly improved reactor was operating in the other Fukushima plant, and all its reactors were shut down safely after being hit by the same Tsunami.

More modern designs are safer still. For example, there are designs that do not require external power for a shutdown at all.

[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

[kuschku]

What you are talking about is hydro-generation.

What I am talking about is hydro-pump-storage.

That type of storage has no dam that could fail – you take two lakes, one higher than the other, connect them with a tunnel, and place a turbine in the tunnel. Now you can push the water up (store energy) or let it flow down (produce energy).

[mpweiher]

Yes, that was a hydro-generation dam.

However, it is simply not true that hydro-pump storage never has a dam.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit...

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

In fact, when you look at the list of pumped storage stations, the vast majority of them have dams:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel...

[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.

[mikeash]

"Far more" is even an understatement. Coal kills more people every year than nuclear ever has, and that still holds true even if you include the two bombs dropped on Japan in "nuclear."

[rayiner]

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

[kuschku]

Yes. Perfectly working coal produces more radiation than perfectly working nuclear.

When coal has a major incident, though, it still produces the same pollutants as if it's working correctly.

When nuclear has incidents, like the plants of Brunsbüttel and Krümmel that frequently had leaks, you end up with the highest leukemia quote worldwide [1].

Krümmel had major issues, with nuclear fuel being found in the area around the reactor, outside, on the ground, with the power plant leaking coolant frequently, and more incidents. [1]

Mismanagement with Nuclear can lead to far more problems than mismanagement with coal.

More Info and Links: [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukämiecluster_Elbmarsch (Sadly, only German article available).

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

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

[mpweiher]

> When coal has a major incident, though, it still produces the same pollutants as if it's working correctly.

Yeah. No.

"Coal mining accidents resulted in 5,938 immediate deaths in 2005, and 4746 immediate deaths in 2006 in China alone according to the World Wildlife Fund"

So each year more deaths from coal accidents alone than the entire predicted, somewhat speculative and hard to ever prove death toll from Chernobyl over the next 20 or so years.

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

[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.