this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2026
82 points (86.6% liked)

science

28465 readers
405 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

dart board;; science bs

rule #1: be kind

lemmy.world rules

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lemmylommy@lemmy.world 0 points 20 hours ago (4 children)

Not much CO2, just mountains of dangerous waste for future generations to take care of. Besides the mountain of debt of course.

[–] rene84828@feddit.org 1 points 8 hours ago

Not much local(!) CO₂.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 8 points 18 hours ago

Truckloads of dangerous waste (a few lorries’ worth a year per plant), which is only dangerous if you stand close to it in the next 10,000 years or so, something that can be mitigated by how one stores it. (Keeping it under water attenuates much of the radiation, for example.) Or, alternatively, it can be reprocessed to make more reactor fuel.

So it’s less than ideal, though one has to measure the quantity of waste and the risks against the certainty of health costs of fossil fuels (which are visible in cancer statistics even when everything is working perfectly).

[–] Forester@pawb.social 7 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Would you like to source that? ALL of the High Level nuclear Waste from the planet can be fit into a 21m cube

https://decarbonization.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-all-the-nuclear-waste-in-the-world/

Medium level waste and low level waste can be deposited in normal surface landfills. LLW is normaly considered non radioactive in 50 years MLW 200. Fun fact there are entire cities that are more naturally radioactive than what we consider MLW. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6709356/

I'd like to make an edit here later on and specify the reason that we do not put it into a 21 m cube is because it would go super critical.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social -1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

This is rather disengenous given I have seen actual waste storage and it takes up way more space. All of it is not shoved in a perfect cube. It tends to be containers withing container withing containers that all are in a facitlity.

[–] Forester@pawb.social 3 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

JFC I made a pre-emptive edit an hour before you spawned and explained exactly why that is that we dont jam it all into a super cube. It would fit in that cube though. However we like our waste non supercritical so we chop that big cube into many thousand smaller cubes then tipple wrap them in glass concrete and steel.

Another great way to look at this is all gold ever mined could be put into a 22m cube, however it is spread through the planet in billions of individual pieces of jewelry, coins, computers, etc.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

yeah maybe something with federation but I just see a part saying you are hoping to edit in future.

[–] Forester@pawb.social 1 points 6 hours ago

I think it failed to save tldr you can avoid criticality by using safe geomety, and distance.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 20 hours ago (2 children)
[–] Forester@pawb.social 4 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

mountains of disinformation

[–] amio@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

People get very silly about nuclear, even aside from legitimate cons to nuclear vs *, and this causes them to exaggerate, misrepresent, and invent drawbacks.