There is no current facility for storing nuclear waste in a safe manner in Germany. Most of the high level waste is stored on the surface near the waste production sites.
Let's take a look at the dangers of plutonium-239: If inhaled a minute dose will be enough to increase the cancer risk to 100%. If ingested a minute dose is almost as dangerous because of it's heavy metal toxicity. It's half life is about 24k years. "It has been estimated that a pound (454 grams) of plutonium inhaled as plutonium oxide dust could give cancer to two million people." (1)
So IMHO it's very irresponsible to create more nuclear waste, as long as we as a society have no way to get rid of it in a safe manner.
100% renewable is achievable and I think we should concentrate on this path since it will be safer and also cheaper in the long run. (2)(3)
Ok, so instead digging up coal mines, Germany could've spent time making a facility for safely storing processed nuclear fuel like many other countries have done. The amount of fear mongering about nuclear power while it's being widely used around the world and having been shown as one of the safest sources of energy is mind boggling. I guess in your opinion what we should do is keep destroying the environment by using fossils while ignoring practical alternatives.
No, my opinion is that we can not use nuclear energy as long as we do not have a long term solution for our nuclear waste. There is no such facility in Germany and a large portion of the waste is currently stored on the surface, partly in heavily populated areas like Philippsburg near Karlsruhe, a city with ~300k inhabitants.
Again, such facilities can be built. It's a choice not to do so. Also, Germany could use alternative fuels like thorium the way China is doing now with their molten salt reactors.
There is no such facility in Germany. As long as there is no facility for storing the radioactive waste, I don't think we should produce more nuclear waste.
It's true that liquid salt reactors are more fuel efficient than light water reactors and the waste is more short lived, but still it produces high level waste with even more radioactivity in the short term.
"All other issues aside, thorium is still nuclear energy, say environmentalists, its reactors disgorging the same toxic byproducts and fissile waste with the same millennial half-lives. Oliver Tickell, author of Kyoto2, says the fission materials produced from thorium are of a different spectrum to those from uranium-235, but 'include many dangerous-to-health alpha and beta emitters'."
I'm struggling with there not being such a facility in Germany. If we as a society can not agree on such a site, which is the current situation in Germany, we should not produce more radioactive waste.
This has been a process full of setbacks in Germany. There is an article on the German Wikipedia about it.
Google translation: https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Endlagersuche_in_Deutschland?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
No, you're struggling with the concept of how things come into existence. When a facility doesn't exist, the way to make it exist is by building this. Incredible that you're still unable to wrap your head around this concept.
There was a democratic and scientific process to find such a site for over twenty years. We as a people could not agree on a place and you can not build such a facility against the will of the people. They have to be convinced that's it's safe and this failed miserably.
So there is no such long term storage facility and my argument which I have repeated multiple times, that you fail to respond to is that:
As long as there is no such site we should not produce more nuclear waste.
What is your proposition how to handle the waste as long as we don't have a place to store it in the long term?
It's absolutely adorable that you think your government is implementing the will of the people given what your government has been doing for the past two years. Baerbock literally let the cat out of the bag when she said that she doesn't give a shit what the voters think.
Google translate:
https://www-bundesregierung-de.translate.goog/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimaschutz/faq-energiewende-2067498?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
This is exactly what a majority of Germans want, we want it even faster and it's what we want our government to do:
Google translate:
https://www-fr-de.translate.goog/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
The point you missed is that what majority of Germans want is entirely incidental to what the government does in Germany. Current government satisfaction is less than 30% last I looked, and your government seems to be proud of that. If the government pursued nuclear energy with the same zeal it's pursuing destruction of German economy then the problem could've been solved long ago.
This is true for a myriad of topics. But not regarding the energy transition away from nuclear and fossil fuels. The people of Germany are very much in support of this idea. 78% of Germans want this process to be finished even earlier and criticise our government for not moving fast enough on this topic.
Google translate:
https://www-fr-de.translate.goog/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Again, the point here is that the government doesn't appear to care one way or another. Public support or lack of thereof for any particular policy appears to play little role.
It does very much play a role. Because of the lack of public support it was not possible to build a long term nuclear storage facility in Germany. There have been multiple tries to establish such a site as early as 1979 in Gorleben. This project has been stopped by a large protest initiative.
I'm sure that if German government actually wanted to build a storage facility they could figure out how to get that done, and barring that they could make a deal with France or other countries who don't appear to have the issues Germany is having. Plenty of countries are using nuclear power in Europe just fine, and nuclear usage is only expanding. Germany is an outlier here.
They have tried for 45 years now and they tried it in Gorleben against the protest of the populace. There have been violent clashes between police and protesters, but in the end the protesters prevailed.
There also have been two storage facilities "Konrad" and "Asse" which have been catastrophic failures. Especially "Asse" was a horrific storage facility, with water leaks and corroded containers.
Google translate
https://www-ndr-de.translate.goog/geschichte/schauplaetze/Marodes-Atommuell-Endlager-Asse-Der-lange-Weg-zur-Raeumung,asse1410.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
These experiences made it very hard to establish storage sites in Germany.
Exactly I think the German plans for the future of energy production are not produced out of thin air. It rather is the result of a well discussed issue that has been in the making for years. And now it's a feasible way to produce enough energy for the populace without resorting to fossil or nuclear fuel.
Yes I will as long as you are not engaging in a civil discussion, but keep succumbing to logical fallacies. You could try using viable arguments though.
I've stated my arguments for you repeatedly, and they haven't changed. It's pretty clear that I'm not going to convince you of anything nor will you convince me. Therefore, any meaningful discussion ended once the arguments were stated, and I see no point regurgitating the same points over and over. Are you so insecure in your views that you need external validation from strangers, and just can't accept that your points aren't convincing to others?
Me having opinions on a subject is not a personal attack. However, the fact that you see people stating their opinions as personal attacks says a lot about you as a person.
So try to elaborate what kind of opinion your trying to support when you say "Have a gold star".
It's this in support of your opinion or is it to undermine mine?
You're not okay with creating waste that can be contained but you are okay with creating waste that can't be contained.
You're not okay with waste that will harm/kill someone improperly exposed to it, but you are okay with waste that will end civilization and kill billions of people and is currently doing so.
I don't think I said that. I'm sure I did say that it's a huge problem. We have to get rid of coal as well as waste producing fission plants. I think we should aim for 100% renewables, which is feasible according to current studies.
Saying I'm against using nuclear power plants does not make me a coal proponent.
We also don't know what to do with the waste from coal plants. The difference is that instead of having an easy to store, easy to track, completely harmless form of waste like that produced by nuclear plants, instead we just pump completely impossible to store, track, or mitigate pollutants straight into the atmosphere, ground, and water. Much better!
My view that we can not produce more nuclear waste as long as we have no long term storage facility does not make me a coal proponent. I oppose coal power production, as do ~80% of Germans. That's why we decided as a society to transition to climate neutral energy production until 2045. Coal power is scheduled to be phased out in 2038. And the plan is to build 40 green hydrogen power plants to supplement the renewables.
Google translate:
https://www-fr-de.translate.goog/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Do you realize how ridiculous you seem bringing up promises to do shit "by 2038" and "until 2045?" We needed to put an end to this shit by the year 2000. Your government won't even have any of the same people in it in 2038. You think they're going to give a shit what people said in 2024?
You're advocating for so little that it may as well be nothing. At least the full "i dont give a shit about the environment, let 'er rip" people are honest. You're exactly the same, you just like to pretend you're better.
I do think that these issues need long term viable solutions. You can't change the energy production infrastructure in five years. This takes time and you need a plan. Germany is currently one of eleven countries that have made the move to zero emission energy production a law. This is in itself quite an achievement. Of course there is no guarantee that it will be implemented exactly as it is planned now. I think it will be a big win if we can achieve climate neutrality in the energy sector by 2045 and phase out coal in fourteen years.
Can you point out what part of my comment you mistook for an ad hominem attack so I can laugh at you even harder? I already know you don't know what ad hominem is, but seeing the specific example will be particularly funny.
You're advocating for so little that it may as well be nothing. At least the full "i dont give a shit about the environment, let 'er rip" people are honest. You're exactly the same, you just like to pretend you're better.
How is this not attacking my personality but continuing a discussion on a civil manner?
Hers the definition from Britannica:
"ad hominem, (Latin: “against the man”) type of argument or attack that appeals to prejudice or feelings or irrelevantly impugns another person’s character instead of addressing the facts or claims made by the latter."
How is this not attacking my personality but continuing a discussion on a civil manner?
It's a direct criticism of the argument you made. You are dishonestly bringing up plans to do in 2045 what should be done yesterday. You pretend to care about these issues but if you truly did care about these issues you would be utterly embarrassed by the ineffectiveness of what you're supporting. You like the image of caring about the environment, but you have no interest in the actual solutions.
appeals to prejudice ❌
or feelings ❌ irrelevantly impugns ❌
instead of addressing the facts or claims ❌
I'm impugning your character for claiming inaccurately and dishonestly that it is acceptable to baby step our way to 2045 when the world is already on fire.
Now you state: "I'm impugning your character for claiming...", "You pretend to care...", "You have no interest in the...". These are all personal attacks without any arguments based on credible sources.
We have problems storing the waste from coal as well, especially given that it is also radioactive [0]. But, instead of nuclear waste which we keep safe in temporary storage, this radioactive material just gets to float free in the atmosphere.
This is true and it's a huge problem. But still the radiation from coal is ~ 0.001 Sievert (1). The radiation from high level nuclear waste after ten years of storage (!) is still ~ 200 Sievert (2). These are mostly spent fuel rods. This is 40 times the lethal dose for any given instant.
"large quantities of uranium and thorium and other radioactive species in coal ash are not being treated as radioactive waste. These products emit low-level radiation, but because of regulatory differences, coal-fired power plants are allowed to release quantities of radioactive material that would provoke enormous public outcry if such amounts were released from nuclear facilities."
"the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants"
"For the complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to reactor operation to waste disposal, the radiation dose is cited as 136 person-rem/year" while it "amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants".
We at least have temporary storage for spent nuclear fuel, we have no such protection with coal plants.
Yes this is true. And again: Me being against nuclear power plants does not make me a coal proponent. I think we have to get rid of both and aim for 100% renewables, which is feasible according to current studies.
For me the most danger lies in storing high level radioactive waste on the surface where it's prone to accidents and can easily contaminate air and ground water.
I don't really know of a storage system that is free of risk. The Three Gorges Dam is more potentially deadly than any reactor for instance as it has 400 million people at risk.
I'm no proponent of these massive structures with unimaginable impact on their environment either. Also Germany will probably never have a structure of this size in the foreseeable future. In order to produce enough energy during times when wind and solar energy is scarce, Germany wants to build 40 climate neutral hydrogen power plants until the 2030s in order to phase out coal power production.
As far as I understand it we will therefore not need more batteries.
Neutral hydrogen power plants? If it's not green hydrogen it's just fossil fuels with more steps and on top of that hydrogen is difficult to store causing it to lose upwards of 60% of the energy put into it.
Then what? Are they going to burn it or are they going to run it through fuel cells that use expensive catalysts?
I think the idea is to produce the green hydrogen by employing renewables during time of high production yields and using this produced hydrogen when the renewables don't produce enough.
This is what I gathered but I'm not 100% sure.
That seems like a misguided approach because green hydrogen is not really efficient. To use it to fuel mobile applications is one thing but to use it for the electrical grid is a misguided venture in my opinion.
I think pumped hydro is likely a better medium with about 80% efficiency while green hydrogen is lucky to get half that.
I don't think that's right, since during times of high solar or wind production, more energy is produced than is consumed. This energy will then be used to create hydrogen. This is a very battery like concept which enables the buffering of renewable energy using hydrogen production. Because of this assymmetry we do not need twice the amount of renewable power plants.
Okay I think I understand, you mean because of the energy lost to the process during hydrogen production, right?
This is true, but it's again a question of how can we produce climate neutral energy without employing fossil fuels or nuclear energy, and if that means we have built more renewable power plants, to fill the hydrogen tanks, why not just build them?
Sure, if it was free to build, it would be better than not having them (though worse than more efficient types of storage), assuming the cost of refining the steel breaks even.
There's a reason fossil fuel companies fund hydrogen.
This is an interesting documentary about the topic: Into eternity. The documentary has a depressing and ephemeral feeling, but I find it extremely amusing that we are taking steps to protect people that will live thousands of years from now.
Taking decisions like "nuclear or not nuclear", "how to dispose the waste", etc. is hard, but doing so ignoring the people that invest their whole life studying the topics is just dumb.
I do think we should protect coming generations from our nuclear waste and I do not think this is ridiculous at all.
In the same way we should leave our children with a world with a livable climate we should not leave them with a heritage of tons of highly radioactive material stored on the surface because we have no long term storage facility.
We currently have no real way to recycle spent fuel. Only a small percentage of nuclear waste can be recycled and it's very expensive to do so, that's why there are only two countries currently recycling fuel: France and Russia. Sellafield in the UK has been closed in the Fukushima aftermath.
In France only 10% of nuclear fuel is recycled material using the purex process, which can also produce weapons-grade plutonium and therefore also raises different concerns.
I don't think that's right. The page clearly states "Nuclear reprocessing is the chemical separation of fission products and actinides from spent nuclear fuel."
There's both, there was a plant in Savanah Ga that was supposed to process nuclear weapons into fuel, but after they got the weapons, they stalled on building the plant.
There were other plans to build reprocessing facilities for old fuel in the US (or breeder reactors that can use them as is) that all died off after the fall of the USSR opened up kazakstan, tanking the price of Uranium.
I'm glad you followed what I was trying to say. I'm not sure why they're so hard stuck on the spent fuel and not the perfectly viable fuel that is considered waste because it's too enriched.
But yes please try to convince me and the readers. That's how discussion work.
"3% of the mass consists of fission products of 235U and 239Pu (also indirect products in the decay chain); these are considered radioactive waste or may be separated further for various industrial and medical uses."
Completely agree with you on the first part. My point is that:
Long term storage in a non-trivial thing to do, from a technical, social and ecological POV. However, it can be build, as shown in the linked documentary.
Not going nuclear has disadvantages (that IMO out number the advantages).
Going nuclear also has disadvantages. Thus, the view of experts on the field has a big importance of the topic. In this matter, the consensus I most commonly find in the physicists community is that nuclear is a energy source that should replace carbon/coal, but needs to be complemented with solar/wind/water/thermal, not just disregarded.
I would like to add that I did not try to call you dumb, I'm sorry if that's the way it ended up sounding like. The dumb part was directed to the people in charge of the decisions, not you.
Yes I agree. It is possible to build long term storage facilities and there is one operating in Finland for example. And the finnish people in the region actually welcomed the facility. But the situation is very much different in Germany. Whenever plans for a such a facility became public massive protests ensued and the projects became politically unfeasable.
Of course we should listen to the experts in the field, but even they had no success in convincing the populace of a possible site. I'm convinced that we need such a facility and that it should be a scientific emotionless process. But this is currently not possible in Germany. And as long as there is no such consensus and we don't have such a facility, I think it's irresponsible to produce more nuclear waste and leave it on the surface for the coming generations to take care of.
The German plan for the "Energiewende" (Energy Transition) is to phase out coal until 2038 and become 100% climate neutral by 2045. The current plan is to do that using a mix of renewables and hydrogen power plants which will substitute the current coal power plants.
Why would you bury fuel that you've only harvested 1% of the energy from? If you're not gonna build reprocessing facilities, sell it to France or Russia.
I don't think exporting waste to different countries were only 10% of the fuel is recycled is a responsible way to manage nuclear waste.
Also there are nuclear proliferation concerns when reprocessing nuclear fuel. I for one would not want to supply Russia with possible raw materials for nuclear weapons.
As for reprocessing, storage is in competition with newly mined fuel. As mining becomes more expensive or nuclear demand increases, there's greater impetus to recycle more fuel. Conversely, if there's fewer plants consuming the fuel or more mines opening, recycling projects die.
The more plants close, the less waste you're gonna get reprocessed.
Russia already has 40,000 nukes, they're not a proliferation risk.
"Russia already has 40,000 nukes, they're not a proliferation risk."
That's true.
In response to your mining argument:
"The known uranium resources represent a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up. There was very little uranium exploration between 1985 and 2005, so the significant increase in exploration effort that we are now seeing could readily double the known economic resources. On the basis of analogies with other metal minerals, a doubling of price from price levels in 2007 could be expected to create about a tenfold increase in measured resources, over time."
So there's enough cheap enough utanium to go around and no need for the industry to recycle spent fuel.
So there's enough cheap enough utanium to go around and no need for the industry to recycle spent fuel.
That is where the supply and demand equation is right now. When the supply was lower before the 90s, the equation favored recycling, and if we build more plants to drive up price, it will favor it again.
Do you have any sourced to back up this claim? Because as I read the cited article the minable uranium supply is far greater than the demand now and in the foreseeable future.
We can not use nuclear energy as long as we do not know what to do with the waste. IMHO it's as easy as that.
We've known what to do with the waste for a long time now. Also, when you use fossil fuels you're just directly polluting the environment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDUvCLAp0uU
There is no current facility for storing nuclear waste in a safe manner in Germany. Most of the high level waste is stored on the surface near the waste production sites. Let's take a look at the dangers of plutonium-239: If inhaled a minute dose will be enough to increase the cancer risk to 100%. If ingested a minute dose is almost as dangerous because of it's heavy metal toxicity. It's half life is about 24k years. "It has been estimated that a pound (454 grams) of plutonium inhaled as plutonium oxide dust could give cancer to two million people." (1) So IMHO it's very irresponsible to create more nuclear waste, as long as we as a society have no way to get rid of it in a safe manner. 100% renewable is achievable and I think we should concentrate on this path since it will be safer and also cheaper in the long run. (2)(3)
Sources:
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239
2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
3: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Ok, so instead digging up coal mines, Germany could've spent time making a facility for safely storing processed nuclear fuel like many other countries have done. The amount of fear mongering about nuclear power while it's being widely used around the world and having been shown as one of the safest sources of energy is mind boggling. I guess in your opinion what we should do is keep destroying the environment by using fossils while ignoring practical alternatives.
No, my opinion is that we can not use nuclear energy as long as we do not have a long term solution for our nuclear waste. There is no such facility in Germany and a large portion of the waste is currently stored on the surface, partly in heavily populated areas like Philippsburg near Karlsruhe, a city with ~300k inhabitants.
https://www.base.bund.de/DE/themen/ne/zwischenlager/standorte/standorte_node.html
Again, such facilities can be built. It's a choice not to do so. Also, Germany could use alternative fuels like thorium the way China is doing now with their molten salt reactors.
There is no such facility in Germany. As long as there is no facility for storing the radioactive waste, I don't think we should produce more nuclear waste.
It's true that liquid salt reactors are more fuel efficient than light water reactors and the waste is more short lived, but still it produces high level waste with even more radioactivity in the short term.
"All other issues aside, thorium is still nuclear energy, say environmentalists, its reactors disgorging the same toxic byproducts and fissile waste with the same millennial half-lives. Oliver Tickell, author of Kyoto2, says the fission materials produced from thorium are of a different spectrum to those from uranium-235, but 'include many dangerous-to-health alpha and beta emitters'."
What part of such a facility could be built are you still struggling with?
I'm struggling with there not being such a facility in Germany. If we as a society can not agree on such a site, which is the current situation in Germany, we should not produce more radioactive waste.
This has been a process full of setbacks in Germany. There is an article on the German Wikipedia about it.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endlagersuche_in_Deutschland
Google translation: https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Endlagersuche_in_Deutschland?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
No, you're struggling with the concept of how things come into existence. When a facility doesn't exist, the way to make it exist is by building this. Incredible that you're still unable to wrap your head around this concept.
There was a democratic and scientific process to find such a site for over twenty years. We as a people could not agree on a place and you can not build such a facility against the will of the people. They have to be convinced that's it's safe and this failed miserably. So there is no such long term storage facility and my argument which I have repeated multiple times, that you fail to respond to is that:
As long as there is no such site we should not produce more nuclear waste.
What is your proposition how to handle the waste as long as we don't have a place to store it in the long term?
It's absolutely adorable that you think your government is implementing the will of the people given what your government has been doing for the past two years. Baerbock literally let the cat out of the bag when she said that she doesn't give a shit what the voters think.
Please check the page of our government about the "Energiewende" (change in energy production)
https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimaschutz/faq-energiewende-2067498
Google translate: https://www-bundesregierung-de.translate.goog/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimaschutz/faq-energiewende-2067498?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
This is exactly what a majority of Germans want, we want it even faster and it's what we want our government to do:
https://www.fr.de/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html
Google translate: https://www-fr-de.translate.goog/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
The point you missed is that what majority of Germans want is entirely incidental to what the government does in Germany. Current government satisfaction is less than 30% last I looked, and your government seems to be proud of that. If the government pursued nuclear energy with the same zeal it's pursuing destruction of German economy then the problem could've been solved long ago.
This is true for a myriad of topics. But not regarding the energy transition away from nuclear and fossil fuels. The people of Germany are very much in support of this idea. 78% of Germans want this process to be finished even earlier and criticise our government for not moving fast enough on this topic.
https://www.fr.de/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html
Google translate: https://www-fr-de.translate.goog/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Again, the point here is that the government doesn't appear to care one way or another. Public support or lack of thereof for any particular policy appears to play little role.
It does very much play a role. Because of the lack of public support it was not possible to build a long term nuclear storage facility in Germany. There have been multiple tries to establish such a site as early as 1979 in Gorleben. This project has been stopped by a large protest initiative.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorleben
I'm sure that if German government actually wanted to build a storage facility they could figure out how to get that done, and barring that they could make a deal with France or other countries who don't appear to have the issues Germany is having. Plenty of countries are using nuclear power in Europe just fine, and nuclear usage is only expanding. Germany is an outlier here.
They have tried for 45 years now and they tried it in Gorleben against the protest of the populace. There have been violent clashes between police and protesters, but in the end the protesters prevailed.
There also have been two storage facilities "Konrad" and "Asse" which have been catastrophic failures. Especially "Asse" was a horrific storage facility, with water leaks and corroded containers.
https://www.ndr.de/geschichte/schauplaetze/Marodes-Atommuell-Endlager-Asse-Der-lange-Weg-zur-Raeumung,asse1410.html
Google translate https://www-ndr-de.translate.goog/geschichte/schauplaetze/Marodes-Atommuell-Endlager-Asse-Der-lange-Weg-zur-Raeumung,asse1410.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
These experiences made it very hard to establish storage sites in Germany.
This may shock you to the core, but people don't get their views out of thin air.
Exactly I think the German plans for the future of energy production are not produced out of thin air. It rather is the result of a well discussed issue that has been in the making for years. And now it's a feasible way to produce enough energy for the populace without resorting to fossil or nuclear fuel.
yup that must be it 😂
Not a single argument from you to support your views or to deconstruct mine.
cry ab it
Yes I will as long as you are not engaging in a civil discussion, but keep succumbing to logical fallacies. You could try using viable arguments though.
I've stated my arguments for you repeatedly, and they haven't changed. It's pretty clear that I'm not going to convince you of anything nor will you convince me. Therefore, any meaningful discussion ended once the arguments were stated, and I see no point regurgitating the same points over and over. Are you so insecure in your views that you need external validation from strangers, and just can't accept that your points aren't convincing to others?
This discussion is not just about you and me.
And your point is?
My point is that we should not produce more nuclear waste as long as we do not have adequate storage facilities for the long term.
And I think that point is dumb. That's just like my opinion man.
Yes but still no argument and still just a personal attack.
There was no personal attack.
"I think that your point is dumb". Next time try something like: "I think your point is not valid" and it won't be a personal attack.
Me having opinions on a subject is not a personal attack. However, the fact that you see people stating their opinions as personal attacks says a lot about you as a person.
So calling me "unable to read" and"unable to comprehend" and all of Germany imbeciles is not a personal attack. I beg to differ.
The comment you replied to screeching about personal attacks was:
Yes and I have cited your other comments as well. That's what a credible source is.
And btw calling my point dumb is IMHO a personal attack. Next time try something like: I don't think your point is valid, because...[insert argument]
have a gold star
I don't understand what you are trying to say
that's been clear for a while
So try to elaborate what kind of opinion your trying to support when you say "Have a gold star". It's this in support of your opinion or is it to undermine mine?
it's me telling you that I'm done with the conversation
You maybe but I am not. I will keep asking you for arguments or credible sources to support your opinion or to undermine mine.
I see you don't understand how conversations work
I'm not trying to have a conversation I'm trying to have s civil discussion
and I think you're just perseverating
That's not a helpful argument to support your opinion
You're not okay with creating waste that can be contained but you are okay with creating waste that can't be contained.
You're not okay with waste that will harm/kill someone improperly exposed to it, but you are okay with waste that will end civilization and kill billions of people and is currently doing so.
I don't think I said that. I'm sure I did say that it's a huge problem. We have to get rid of coal as well as waste producing fission plants. I think we should aim for 100% renewables, which is feasible according to current studies. Saying I'm against using nuclear power plants does not make me a coal proponent.
You can put nuclear waste in a box and decide what to do with it later. CO² is less helpful that way.
And unlike my bills, it becomes less dangerous the longer you ignore them.
We also don't know what to do with the waste from coal plants. The difference is that instead of having an easy to store, easy to track, completely harmless form of waste like that produced by nuclear plants, instead we just pump completely impossible to store, track, or mitigate pollutants straight into the atmosphere, ground, and water. Much better!
My view that we can not produce more nuclear waste as long as we have no long term storage facility does not make me a coal proponent. I oppose coal power production, as do ~80% of Germans. That's why we decided as a society to transition to climate neutral energy production until 2045. Coal power is scheduled to be phased out in 2038. And the plan is to build 40 green hydrogen power plants to supplement the renewables.
https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Dossier/energiewende.html
Google translate: https://www-bmwk-de.translate.goog/Redaktion/DE/Dossier/energiewende.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
https://www.fr.de/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html
Google translate: https://www-fr-de.translate.goog/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Do you realize how ridiculous you seem bringing up promises to do shit "by 2038" and "until 2045?" We needed to put an end to this shit by the year 2000. Your government won't even have any of the same people in it in 2038. You think they're going to give a shit what people said in 2024?
You're advocating for so little that it may as well be nothing. At least the full "i dont give a shit about the environment, let 'er rip" people are honest. You're exactly the same, you just like to pretend you're better.
I do think that these issues need long term viable solutions. You can't change the energy production infrastructure in five years. This takes time and you need a plan. Germany is currently one of eleven countries that have made the move to zero emission energy production a law. This is in itself quite an achievement. Of course there is no guarantee that it will be implemented exactly as it is planned now. I think it will be a big win if we can achieve climate neutrality in the energy sector by 2045 and phase out coal in fourteen years.
https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-net-zero-target-evaluations/
Please refrain from using ad hominem attacks and support your views with arguments rather than personal insults.
Can you point out what part of my comment you mistook for an ad hominem attack so I can laugh at you even harder? I already know you don't know what ad hominem is, but seeing the specific example will be particularly funny.
How is this not attacking my personality but continuing a discussion on a civil manner?
Hers the definition from Britannica: "ad hominem, (Latin: “against the man”) type of argument or attack that appeals to prejudice or feelings or irrelevantly impugns another person’s character instead of addressing the facts or claims made by the latter."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ad-hominem
It's a direct criticism of the argument you made. You are dishonestly bringing up plans to do in 2045 what should be done yesterday. You pretend to care about these issues but if you truly did care about these issues you would be utterly embarrassed by the ineffectiveness of what you're supporting. You like the image of caring about the environment, but you have no interest in the actual solutions.
I'm impugning your character for claiming inaccurately and dishonestly that it is acceptable to baby step our way to 2045 when the world is already on fire.
You called me a liar. That's clearly ad hominem.
Now you state: "I'm impugning your character for claiming...", "You pretend to care...", "You have no interest in the...". These are all personal attacks without any arguments based on credible sources.
We have problems storing the waste from coal as well, especially given that it is also radioactive [0]. But, instead of nuclear waste which we keep safe in temporary storage, this radioactive material just gets to float free in the atmosphere.
[0] https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-wastes-coal-fired-power-plants
This is true and it's a huge problem. But still the radiation from coal is ~ 0.001 Sievert (1). The radiation from high level nuclear waste after ten years of storage (!) is still ~ 200 Sievert (2). These are mostly spent fuel rods. This is 40 times the lethal dose for any given instant.
1:https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1002/ML100280691.pdf
2:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel
From your source 1:
"large quantities of uranium and thorium and other radioactive species in coal ash are not being treated as radioactive waste. These products emit low-level radiation, but because of regulatory differences, coal-fired power plants are allowed to release quantities of radioactive material that would provoke enormous public outcry if such amounts were released from nuclear facilities."
"the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants"
"For the complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to reactor operation to waste disposal, the radiation dose is cited as 136 person-rem/year" while it "amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants".
We at least have temporary storage for spent nuclear fuel, we have no such protection with coal plants.
Yes this is true. And again: Me being against nuclear power plants does not make me a coal proponent. I think we have to get rid of both and aim for 100% renewables, which is feasible according to current studies.
For me the most danger lies in storing high level radioactive waste on the surface where it's prone to accidents and can easily contaminate air and ground water.
How do you think renewable energy can be stored?
I don't really know of a storage system that is free of risk. The Three Gorges Dam is more potentially deadly than any reactor for instance as it has 400 million people at risk.
deleted by creator
I'm no proponent of these massive structures with unimaginable impact on their environment either. Also Germany will probably never have a structure of this size in the foreseeable future. In order to produce enough energy during times when wind and solar energy is scarce, Germany wants to build 40 climate neutral hydrogen power plants until the 2030s in order to phase out coal power production. As far as I understand it we will therefore not need more batteries.
Neutral hydrogen power plants? If it's not green hydrogen it's just fossil fuels with more steps and on top of that hydrogen is difficult to store causing it to lose upwards of 60% of the energy put into it.
Then what? Are they going to burn it or are they going to run it through fuel cells that use expensive catalysts?
I think the idea is to produce the green hydrogen by employing renewables during time of high production yields and using this produced hydrogen when the renewables don't produce enough. This is what I gathered but I'm not 100% sure.
That seems like a misguided approach because green hydrogen is not really efficient. To use it to fuel mobile applications is one thing but to use it for the electrical grid is a misguided venture in my opinion.
I think pumped hydro is likely a better medium with about 80% efficiency while green hydrogen is lucky to get half that.
I don't think it's a question of efficiency. It's a question of producing the least amount of CO2 as possible. This is where green hydrogen shines.
It really is though. If you need twice as many solar panels to make the same energy it's a very pertinent problem.
I don't think that's right, since during times of high solar or wind production, more energy is produced than is consumed. This energy will then be used to create hydrogen. This is a very battery like concept which enables the buffering of renewable energy using hydrogen production. Because of this assymmetry we do not need twice the amount of renewable power plants.
You do though. You need to refill the storage faster than it is drained, it's a simple numbers game.
If you waste half the electricity produced going hydrogen over pumped hydro then you need more renewables.
Okay I think I understand, you mean because of the energy lost to the process during hydrogen production, right? This is true, but it's again a question of how can we produce climate neutral energy without employing fossil fuels or nuclear energy, and if that means we have built more renewable power plants, to fill the hydrogen tanks, why not just build them?
Sure, if it was free to build, it would be better than not having them (though worse than more efficient types of storage), assuming the cost of refining the steel breaks even.
There's a reason fossil fuel companies fund hydrogen.
Of course this is more expensive. This is the price for being independent of fossil and nuclear fuel.
Fossil fuel companies support hydrogen plants that use fossil fuel to produce "grey" hydrogen, not green hydrogen produced by renewables.
Okay? What you're describing is a lesser problem. Even if we couldn't fuel more modern reactors with it, which we can.
neat! didn't think there was such a discrepancy. are these sievert numbers normalized for energy yield?
No, these are absolute numbers
France and Japan just fire more reactors with the waste. Been doing it since at least the 70s
https://whatisnuclear.com/recycling.html
https://www.statista.com/statistics/463624/france-radioactive-waste-nuclear-industry-by-type/
deleted by creator
This is an interesting documentary about the topic: Into eternity. The documentary has a depressing and ephemeral feeling, but I find it extremely amusing that we are taking steps to protect people that will live thousands of years from now.
Taking decisions like "nuclear or not nuclear", "how to dispose the waste", etc. is hard, but doing so ignoring the people that invest their whole life studying the topics is just dumb.
I do think we should protect coming generations from our nuclear waste and I do not think this is ridiculous at all. In the same way we should leave our children with a world with a livable climate we should not leave them with a heritage of tons of highly radioactive material stored on the surface because we have no long term storage facility.
How much nuclear waste do you think is being created?
There was a research out of the US that said the US could run entirely off nuclear for the next century using just nuclear waste that already exists.
If you read that and were like "EXACTLY. It's so much waste" just know that waste is virtually all from nuclear weapons.
Sorry but I do not understand what you are trying to say there. Can you elaborate please?
The waste already exists. Might as well use it.
We currently have no real way to recycle spent fuel. Only a small percentage of nuclear waste can be recycled and it's very expensive to do so, that's why there are only two countries currently recycling fuel: France and Russia. Sellafield in the UK has been closed in the Fukushima aftermath. In France only 10% of nuclear fuel is recycled material using the purex process, which can also produce weapons-grade plutonium and therefore also raises different concerns.
https://www.goodenergycollective.org/policy/faq-recycling-nuclear-waste
Nuclear weapons are not spent fuel.
No but during nuclear waste recycling weapons-grade material can be produced, that's why it's a nuclear proliferation concern.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
These are literal nuclear weapons and waste from refining to make them. It literally sits in a parking lot in Tennessee
I don't think that's right. The page clearly states "Nuclear reprocessing is the chemical separation of fission products and actinides from spent nuclear fuel."
There's both, there was a plant in Savanah Ga that was supposed to process nuclear weapons into fuel, but after they got the weapons, they stalled on building the plant.
There were other plans to build reprocessing facilities for old fuel in the US (or breeder reactors that can use them as is) that all died off after the fall of the USSR opened up kazakstan, tanking the price of Uranium.
I'm glad you followed what I was trying to say. I'm not sure why they're so hard stuck on the spent fuel and not the perfectly viable fuel that is considered waste because it's too enriched.
You're still missing the point but I'm not going to try to convince you that plutonium isn't a spent fuel if you believe that.
But yes please try to convince me and the readers. That's how discussion work.
"3% of the mass consists of fission products of 235U and 239Pu (also indirect products in the decay chain); these are considered radioactive waste or may be separated further for various industrial and medical uses."
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel
Completely agree with you on the first part. My point is that:
I would like to add that I did not try to call you dumb, I'm sorry if that's the way it ended up sounding like. The dumb part was directed to the people in charge of the decisions, not you.
Yes I agree. It is possible to build long term storage facilities and there is one operating in Finland for example. And the finnish people in the region actually welcomed the facility. But the situation is very much different in Germany. Whenever plans for a such a facility became public massive protests ensued and the projects became politically unfeasable.
Of course we should listen to the experts in the field, but even they had no success in convincing the populace of a possible site. I'm convinced that we need such a facility and that it should be a scientific emotionless process. But this is currently not possible in Germany. And as long as there is no such consensus and we don't have such a facility, I think it's irresponsible to produce more nuclear waste and leave it on the surface for the coming generations to take care of.
The German plan for the "Energiewende" (Energy Transition) is to phase out coal until 2038 and become 100% climate neutral by 2045. The current plan is to do that using a mix of renewables and hydrogen power plants which will substitute the current coal power plants.
https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Dossier/energiewende.html
Google translate: https://www-bmwk-de.translate.goog/Redaktion/DE/Dossier/energiewende.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Why would you bury fuel that you've only harvested 1% of the energy from? If you're not gonna build reprocessing facilities, sell it to France or Russia.
I don't think exporting waste to different countries were only 10% of the fuel is recycled is a responsible way to manage nuclear waste.
Also there are nuclear proliferation concerns when reprocessing nuclear fuel. I for one would not want to supply Russia with possible raw materials for nuclear weapons.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
As for reprocessing, storage is in competition with newly mined fuel. As mining becomes more expensive or nuclear demand increases, there's greater impetus to recycle more fuel. Conversely, if there's fewer plants consuming the fuel or more mines opening, recycling projects die.
The more plants close, the less waste you're gonna get reprocessed.
Russia already has 40,000 nukes, they're not a proliferation risk.
That's true.
In response to your mining argument:
"The known uranium resources represent a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up. There was very little uranium exploration between 1985 and 2005, so the significant increase in exploration effort that we are now seeing could readily double the known economic resources. On the basis of analogies with other metal minerals, a doubling of price from price levels in 2007 could be expected to create about a tenfold increase in measured resources, over time."
So there's enough cheap enough utanium to go around and no need for the industry to recycle spent fuel.
That is where the supply and demand equation is right now. When the supply was lower before the 90s, the equation favored recycling, and if we build more plants to drive up price, it will favor it again.
Do you have any sourced to back up this claim? Because as I read the cited article the minable uranium supply is far greater than the demand now and in the foreseeable future.