There are actually two solutions, both plenty viable:clem said:The radioactive nuclear waste problem is related to physics, and has still not been solved by the nuclear engineers or politicians.
Now that's just a load of BS. Every year, the world dumps 25 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and barely bats an eyelash. It has no half life, meaning it lasts forever. If, instead, we could have a few tons of waste that never gets released into the environment, how could that not be better?Countries that use so much nuclear energy don't care about future generations hundreds and thousands of years in the future.
Nuclear power is the only viable solution to the world's energy needs. When it comes to energy, there are three issues:Cmertin said:Basically anywhere, is it reasonable to use nuclear power? I know that France gets 70% of their power from nuclear plants, though other countries don't use a lot of it... Do you think we should?
The French reprocess the spent fuel and recycle the unused U and the Pu that is produced. The fission products are ecapsulated in a glass/ceramic matrix, which is vitrified and stored in several corrosion resistant containers. Those containers can be placed in geologically stable environments are be quite safe for 1000's, even millions of years, during which time the radionuclides decay to stable no radioactive nuclides. The more radioactive a nulcide, the faster it decays. After a period of 10 half-lives, the activity decays by a factor of 1000 (210), so after 20 half-lives the activity is reduced by 1 million, and then 1 billion after 30 half-lives, 1 trillion after 40 half-lives. The inert nuclides provide addition in-situ shielding and entrainment.clem said:The radioactive nuclear waste problem is related to physics, and has still not been solved by the nuclear engineers or politicians. Countries that use so much nuclear energy don't care about future generations hundreds and thousands of years in the future.
Quite a lot of radioactivity - typically 100x as much as a nuclear power plant.Astronuc said:even some radioactivity in the form of radium and radon, which are found in the rock formations from which coal is extracted.
A 1000MW coal station burns around 4Mt of coal/year.cesiumfrog said:From the perspective of radioactive waste per kWhr, nuclear is better than the status quo. (Again since nuclear energy is so concentrated, the amount of uranium needed for nuclear power is the same as the uranium impurities in the large quantity of coal needed for the same amount of fossil power.
clem said:The radioactive nuclear waste problem is related to physics, and has still not been solved by the nuclear engineers or politicians. Countries that use so much nuclear energy don't care about future generations hundreds and thousands of years in the future.
Russ,russ_watters said:There are actually two solutions, both plenty viable:
1. Reprocess it (recycle and reuse).
2. Long term storage.
Now that's just a load of BS. Every year, the world dumps 25 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and barely bats an eyelash. It has no half life, meaning it lasts forever. If, instead, we could have a few tons of waste that never gets released into the environment, how could that not be better?
vanesh,vanesch said:Concerning the reprocessing, and having as waste just the fission products (which have a "dangerous life time" of a few hundred years), one does need to say however that one cannot really do this entirely with the current generation of thermal (PWR/BWR) reactors ; fast reactors are needed if one wants to do so, and this is technically entirely possible and has been demonstrated, but is not commercially exploited on any scale of significance. If you don't use fast reactors, there's no way to get rid of the entire series of actinides that are produced in the waste, including plutonium.
Every year, the world dumps 25 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and barely bats an eyelash. It has no half life, meaning it lasts forever.
This is a highly debated question and there is no clear-cut answer. Some argue that nuclear energy is necessary to meet our growing energy needs and reduce carbon emissions, while others are concerned about the potential risks and consequences of using nuclear power.
Nuclear energy is a reliable and efficient source of energy that does not produce greenhouse gas emissions. It also has a high energy density, meaning it can produce large amounts of energy in a small space. Additionally, nuclear power plants have a long lifespan and can operate consistently without interruption.
The main concern with nuclear energy is the potential for accidents and the release of radioactive materials. These accidents can have devastating consequences for human health and the environment. There is also the issue of nuclear waste disposal, which can remain radioactive for thousands of years.
While nuclear energy does not produce carbon emissions, it is not considered a renewable energy source. This is because it relies on a finite resource - uranium - to generate power. Additionally, the construction and decommissioning of nuclear power plants have a significant environmental impact.
There are several alternatives to nuclear energy, including renewable sources such as solar, wind, and hydro power. These sources are becoming increasingly more affordable and can also help to reduce carbon emissions. Other options include energy efficiency measures and investing in cleaner fossil fuel technologies.