39
Germany - The search for a final repository for nuclear waste may be delayed by decades
(aussiedlerbote.de)
What's with the jacked shirtless dude lmao
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
39 points (100.0% liked)
Green - An environmentalist community
5314 readers
1 users here now
This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!
RULES:
1- Remember the human
2- Link posts should come from a reputable source
3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith
Related communities:
- /c/collapse
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/[email protected]
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
- /c/[email protected]
- SLRPNK
Unofficial Chat rooms:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Every article needs a shitty AI generated image nowadays
We know where the best spots would be geologically, but the Bavarians happen to live there. That's why the waste is stored in leaky former salt mines in Northern Germany, in rusty barrels. The Bavarians are big proponents of nuclear energy, but there's no way they want that shit buried in their glorious territory.
Kind of a weird idea, I guess... why can't we launch the waste to the sun? That's a serious question. Same goes for the mountains of trash around the world, send it off to the sun.
Its actually easier to send it out of our solar system than to the sun. And then there are the other reasons like limited capacity of rocket, costs, failing rockets, amount of waste etc.
why can't we launch the waste to the sun?
Because we are talking about thousands of tonnes of highly radioactive waste (not counting the lower ones). A quick search tells me in the region of 15.000t for Germany. That alone makes it pretty expensive.
And then you want to launch it into space where every start you risk an explosion that spreads that waste?
Hm... I thought we've mastered the launch, but maybe I thought wrong.
Putting things into space is extremely expensive in both money and harm to the environment.
You gotta pick your poison. Nuclear waste vs carbon dioxide.
Since I see no evidence of sea levels rising... refer to Liberty Island images of the late 1800s vs recent (yeah yeah "fact checkers" tried using tide fluctuation as an explanation as if that wasn't taken into account), I rather pick carbon dioxide over something that can mutate our DNA, give us cancer, and die a slow death.
Also:
Spent nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts. More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor. The United States does not currently recycle spent nuclear fuel but foreign countries, such as France, do. Oct 3, 2022
Wasn't even aware, learned something new.
I choose solar.
Accidents happen and considering the amount of waste there would be have to be quite a few launches.
I'm not sure if there is a good list out there, but just some examples from memory: just last month space x failed to deliver satellites in the right orbit and I think one of the other incidents at the end relates to this one that actually exploded.
The second one ofc is a bit older, but still what is an acceptable risk to take when handling radioactive material? And the recent one also wouldn't be fun.
I would also imagine that handling the waste on the ground would make everything much more difficult until the launch.
Oh! Nice find, I wasn't aware of the recent failures. Thanks!