Unique-Public-8594 t1_j1r99uj wrote
Reply to comment by Nobel6skull in Wind developers’ tightening financials call New England project into question by stewart0077
The waste from nuclear power plants remains radioactive for thousands of years though. Do we really want more of that? I’d say no. Not when wind, solar, and hydro are better options.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-and-the-environment.php
SheeEttin t1_j1rq2dr wrote
No, but no energy production has zero environmental impact.
Nuclear power's biggest environmental impact is actually building the plants and warming local water sources when they're used for cooking. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed to turn 97% of it back into fuel. The remainder can be safely stored in a facility like Yucca Mountain.
NoMoLerking t1_j1rn1hi wrote
Only nuclear offers low-carbon base load power. There’s literally no other option.
femtoinfluencer t1_j1uvb3w wrote
For what it's worth, a large portion of the "radioactive for thousands of years" problem is solvable, and there are a couple ways to solve it.
The problem is that comprehensively solving it and having a system in place for it being solved is not done yet, because either you need to build enough plants that burn the waste (plus systems for transporting it etc) or you need to switch to something like thorium as fuel, which generates much less / less toxic waste in the first place. Either of those things is doable, but they take A LOT of work.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments