[cwassert]

First of all, of course one country should be able to influence other countries in the EU. That's the whole point of the EU.

Secondly, the waste products of nuclear reactors are much more problematic than CO2. Handling of this waste is often overlooked when looking at the costs or CO2 footprint.

And that does not even touch the associated risks.

[preisschild]

> First of all, of course one country should be able to influence other countries in the EU

Blocking other countries tends to make member states hate each other, which isn't good for the EU.

> Secondly, the waste products of nuclear reactors are much more problematic than CO2

You literally just put them inside steel concrete casks [1] after they were in a pool for a few years. You can even hug those casks safely. Whereas the CO2 is in the air we breathe and in the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming.

How is this "more problematic"?

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage

[nottorp]

> How is this "more problematic"?

Just like more people are afraid of airplane accidents in spite of them being much more likely to die in their own car.

[natmaka]

> Just like more people are afraid of airplane accidents

This doesn't compute: avoiding being a victim of a plane accident is rather simple: don't hop on any plane and your are something along the .99999 covered.

Avoiding being threatened (and many generations after you) by a nuclear major accident or erring 'hot' nuclear waste is way (WAY!) more difficult.

[nottorp]

So you are walking to work right? If you avoid airplanes, why not extend this to cars?

[s1artibartfast]

I don't think it's a slam dunk for banning nuclear, but agree with the parent post that consent to risk is a valid part of the conversation.

Car or plane, the people most exposed to the risk have some choice in the matter - to fly, drive, or be around vehicles.

New considerations are introduced when those exposed to the risks of your choice maybe hundreds of miles away with no say, or even yet to be born.

[preisschild]

Its very similar. Most people "at risk" for a accident in a nuclear power plant are the workers. There are multiple redundancies that make sure dangerous levels of radioactive isotopes are not released to the public. Thats why every western nuclear power plant has required containment buildings basically forever. Chernobyl didn't, which is why it affected the environment / nearby people.

[natmaka]

The misdeeds of some (nuclear...) do not constitute mitigating circumstances for others (cars...).

[moi2388]

It’s not. Example: I’ve never been in contact with nuclear waste, yet constantly breathe in the co2 from coal plants.

[natmaka]

Scoop: it now is not about "nuclear vs. coal" but "nuclear vs. renewables".

[natmaka]

> one country should be able to influence other countries in the EU.

Who pays decide (Germany is the first financial contributor), that's business as usual.

> Whereas the CO2 is in the air

In the UE the question is how much renewables and how much nuclear will be built, and their (dubious) compatibility. Very few want to see more fossil fuel.

The "nuclear waste is a solved challenge" is funny, as experts explicitly state that there is no safe solution (due to risks induced by seismotectonics, intrusions, casks imperfections...).

It's the "Asse II mine" joke all over again: "there will be no problem" followed by "Ouch! Err...". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine#History

[chickenbig]

> experts explicitly state that there is no safe solution

What is their definition of safe?

> It's the "Asse II mine" joke all over again

It would be good to see the cost/benefit analysis of the proposal to remove everything from the mine

https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/meetings/2018/marc... page 17 has backfilling as the preferred option in 4 out of the 5 assessment categories.

[natmaka]

> definition of safe?

Some claim that nuclear waste repositories are perfect (0 risk), and experts disagree.

> backfilling

Yay, such a superb gift to our children, their children, their children...!

The underlying point is about how much renewables and how much nuclear may we build in order to tackle current challenges (climate, pollution...), one of the criteria is waste and renewables win hands down.

[chickenbig]

> Some claim that nuclear waste repositories are perfect (0 risk), and experts disagree.

Disagreement is natural in science as well as engineering. And absolutes are not. Framing nuclear waste disposal, or in fact any enterprise, in terms of finding total agreement on total safety is not useful.

> one of the criteria is waste and renewables win hands down

In what terms are we to assess the waste? By volume, likely number of people killed over the lifetime of the waste, maximum number killed? Do we count the waste from manufacturing as well?

[natmaka]

> Disagreement

Indeed, my point was about a form of propaganda quite common in France, which states that long-term waste repositories (now work-in-progress) will be perfectly safe. They won't.

> assess the waste?

Most of renewables' waste is recyclable, and more and more is recycled, even wind turbine blades.

> likely number of people killed over the lifetime of the waste

The more types of waste and the longer the lifetime (nuclear...), the more difficult it is.

> count the waste from manufacturing

As far as I understand yes, an adequate life-cycle assessment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment ) has to do so, however this is a good point: it may somewhat be neglected.

[preisschild]

The experts literally said that digging up Asse II was useless and it was safe to leave the waste down there

https://www.ssk.de/SharedDocs/Beratungsergebnisse/DE/2016/20...

It was a political decision by the greens to waste money.

[natmaka]

There are dissenting opinions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine#Current_progress

In not-so-ancient times "experts" were also OK with ocean disposal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_...

AFAIK few experts now judge adequate to use such mines, and many nations build dedicated repositories.

[chickenbig]

> There are dissenting opinions

Flat earthers exist too.

> In not-so-ancient times "experts" were also OK with ocean disposal.

The link you gave did not list the effects of ocean disposal; elevated and measurable are not the same as significant or harmful unless you are a firm believer in LNT, although at the bottom of the ocean the background radiation dose from cosmic rays will be less.

[natmaka]

> File earthers

Whatever they believe or not isn't impeding others' lifes.

The underlying point is about how much renewables and how much nuclear may we build in order to tackle current challenges (climate, pollution...), one of the criteria is waste and renewables win hands down.

> ocean disposal

AFAIK no expert now states that ocean disposal is OK, this is a settled matter since at least 1972 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Convention_on_the_Preve... ), therefore a bunch of assessments of the current situation for stuff dangerous for at least hundred years doesn't seem pertinent to me.

[chickenbig]

> Whatever they believe or not isn't impeding others' lifes.

The principle is that we don't seek unanimity before proceeding with something.

> this is a settled matter since at least 1972

Disposal of small amounts of radioactive material at sea and into the air happens (e.g. reprocessing plant water releases, power station tritiated water releases).

An international convention does not settle the science behind ocean disposal. The lack of supporters perhaps reflects the difficulty in carrying out such research, and the problems of trying to change international agreements.