• Jayjader
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    According to Our World In Data (which claims to use the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy from 2023 as a data source), that waste is from producing around 70 TWh each year:

    That only covers around a third of Switzerland’s energy consumption over those years. Furthermore, Switzerland is a small mountainous country with decent access to hydropower (making up around a third of its needs over the same years). They are not necessarily representative of the waste that would accumulate from a more agressive switch from fossil fuels to nuclear across the world (which is what we’re talking about, if I’m not mistaken).

    France is about 10 times larger in surface area and according to the same source, consumed/produced over 1,000 TWh of nuclear energy each year:

    And officially has still has no place to put the high-energy waste (source - in french), leaving it up to the plant’s owners to deal with it. There is an official project to come up with a “deep” geological storage facility, but no political will seems musterable to make that plan materialize beyond endless promises.

    I should mention that I’m not super anti-nuclear, and I would certainly rather we focus on eliminating coal and oil power plants (and ideally natural gas ones as well) before we start dismantling existing nuclear reactors that are still in functioning order.

    That being said, there are other problems with nuclear moving forwards besides waste management. The main one that worries me is the use of water for the cooling circuits, pumped from rivers or the sea. Not only do open cooling circuits have adverse affects on their surrounding ecosystems, as the planet gets warmer and the temperature swings during the hotter seasons become more pronounced, the power plants will become less efficient. The water going in will be at a higher temperature than it is today, and thus will absorb less energy from the nuclear reaction itself.

    Overall, I don’t trust our current collective responsibility as a species to manage our current forms of nuclear production. Russia sent its own troops into the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone to dig trenches in contaminated soil last year, and they allegedly recognized last week that the Zaporizhzhia power plant is now “unsafe to restart” because of the military activity in the region.

    The world has not experienced generalized warfare with nuclear power plants dotting the countryside; WW2 ended around a decade before the first nuclear power plants were up and running in the USSR, the UK, and the USA.

    Not to mention how few European countries have access to uranium on their own soil/territory. Of course, most of the rare earth metals used in photoelectric panels and windmills aren’t found there either, but as least with “renewables” they are used once to make the machinery, not as literal fuel that is indefinitely consumed to produce power.

    I don’t know enough about thorium-based reactors nor molten salt-based reactors to go to bat for them instead, but they seem like a more promising way for nuclear to remain relevant.

    • UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      I don’t think solution for storage would be a problem if politicians had more of a backbone with deciding a place for storage, and I frankly don’t see a future without fossil fuels where nuclear doesn’t play a key role. All of the US’ nuclear waste could fit on a football field 3 meters tall. We got space for it.

      As for energy security. Canada is a massive producer, and NexGen Energy is sitting on a massive deposit. Most utilities store ~4 years of material on site, and the fact it’s so easily stored for many years is why Japan invested heavily in it in all those years ago. I don’t think access to uranium is much of a concern.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        and I frankly don’t see a future without fossil fuels where nuclear doesn’t play a key role

        I think the anti-nuclear idiots are, well, idiots, but I disagree with you here. I think the idiots have successfully blocked nuclear long enough that it’s just more economical to go full renewable + storage. Yeah, we should have had nuclear 50 years ago and would probably be looking at a much more habitable planet, I fully agree. But I think the ship has sailed.

    • Waryle
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      France made a record year last year, with 320TWh of nuclear power produced for a total of 434 TWh of electricity, while being the top exporter of electricity of Europe.

      I don’t know how they got to 1000TWh of nuclear a year, I suspect weed.