undefined | Better HN

0 pointslb04y ago0 comments

totaling 8 now .. but in the end will need another one really going down bad to stop all the sudden pro-nuclear movement here in Europe, which I can imagine only must have some astroturfing behind.

But til then, blow more money into insurable and as much green as coal and gas power plants :(

(And that calculations done by real experts didn't even include all the other uneconomic issues from getting that stuff from somewhere til storing the waste - but yeah I know, all these waste will be taken by those new shiny molten reactors that have no problem at all on paper and will eat all the waste - both things just so far from reality in practice, which almost does not exist even).

The common stance and knowledge here at HN about all this is consternating :(

0 comments

thatfrenchguy4y ago

> But til then, blow more money into insurable and as much green as coal and gas power plants :(

Nuclear plants don't emit CO2, unlike coal and gas plants.

psychoslave4y ago

But they do generate (human-)life-threatening nuclear wastes that last 100k years. That dwarfs even the longest human civilization like Egypt[0]. 100k ago, humankind was barely appearing. Plastic in comparison takes around 450 years to be disaggregated through exo-human processes[1].

How to deal properly with these wastes is still a vigorous debate generator[2]. The thing is, with our current theoretical knowledge and practical expertise, we don’t have solutions that scale at the industrial level at which nuclear wastes are produced. Not in a way that we can say "and thus mankind will be completely free of dealing with this issue in the next 100k year".

[0] https://pintsofhistory.com/2011/08/08/the-unbelievable-durat... and you might have a look at https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-hist... [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/chart-of-the-day-this... [2] https://www.challenges.fr/top-news/l-asn-pointe-un-risque-d-...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse