[senectus1]

nuclear power plants are not environmentally friendly. sure they're carbon friendly and "green" in other ways, but the mining of uranium is horrendously dirty, the long term storage of the waste is dirty as hell and this waterways heating issue is just another problem.

green renewable should be our goals, we're bathed in power every day it just needs to be bottled. nuclear plants have their place, but its few and far between and i would argue less than desirable in general.

[titzer]

A typical large scale nuclear plant produces 3 cubic meters of waste fuel which is (in the US at least) stored onsite in cooling pools. It is not "dirty as hell".

> green renewable should be our goals, we're bathed in power every day it just needs to be bottled.

There is a lot to unpack in this vague statement, but generally speaking, utility-scale power generation from nuclear has the lowest ecological footprint, not just in land area, but all-told. A solar farm is a big, complex, thing with a huge footprint.

[Moldoteck]

the long term storage of the waste is dirty as hell - It's not! France manages to recycle a lot of it's fuel(not sure if all), 90% gets back to reactor, 10% is transformed in solid state via vitrification for long term storage, where only first ~300 yrs are really dangerous bc of the decay speed of these 10% Why others don't do this? Fk knows, fossils lobby I guess+ some other 'reasons' that are not that important. There are similar reprocessing plants in Japan and (maybe) China and one more county

[freeone3000]

US doesn’t do it because the highly-radioactive byproducts generated by the reactors were at one point the desired end-product. But even so, it’s a miniscule amount — such that things like “having an off-site storage facility” are problems that have been put off for decades (and probably can be for a few more).

[hansthehorse]

In the US the Carter administration stopped spent fuel recycling due to it's fears of nuclear proliferation. Didn't make sense to me at the time and still doesn't.

[pif]

> green renewable should be our goals

Comfortable life for everyone is my goal.

> we're bathed in power every day it just needs to be bottled

That word "just" proves that you don't know what you are talking about.

[croes]

It's the same "just" as in we need just more nuclear power plants.

But he is right about the botteling. Storing energy is the most important issue, because we have plenty of energy sources but still depend on production on demand.

[troupo]

The thing is, we can produce nuclear power plants reasonably fast [1]

The problem with storage is that we don't have it. Not now, not for forseeable future. Australia has had some headways into the problems though, and has been midly successful with storage at scale.

[1] And unbearably slow. There are examples of both.

[cowl]

> but the mining of uranium is horrendously dirty,

if you go down enough the chain of anything you find something that is not so friendly. And anyway that is a call to review Uranium mining practices not a condamnation of nuclear tech. In sum nuclear power plants are friendlier that everything we have right now.

[theandrewbailey]

> but the mining of uranium is horrendously dirty, the long term storage of the waste is dirty as hell and this waterways heating issue is just another problem.

The production of renewable infrastructure, and mining for the materials required to produce them is also horrendously dirty.

[troupo]

> the long term storage of the waste is dirty as hell

90% of waste can be safely stored on-site, and is short-lived.

The remaining waste is ridiculously minuscule, and can probably fit in a few shipping containers. The main reason it's expensive to store is politics.

> it just needs to be bottled

"just".