Pinned
MYTH: We don't have a solution to nuclear's "waste problem"
REALITY: Nuclear waste isn't a problem. In fact, it’s the best solution we have to meeting our energy needs while protecting the natural environment!
Here's what you need to know:
Madi Hilly
4,474 posts
Madi Hilly
@MadiHilly
Working on an abundant future at @RadiantEnergyG ⚡ Working to populate it with @GriffinHilly ❤️ Fellow: @joinFAI
- Replying to @MadiHillyIn summary, nuclear waste: - is solid (not glowing green goo) - is tiny compared to the waste from all other energy technologies - is easily contained - has a perfect safety record Nuclear waste does have a problem, however...
- Replying to @MadiHillyBecause uranium is very energy dense, the amount of waste is relatively small. All of the fuel rods ever used by the commercial nuclear industry since the late 1950s could fit on a single football field stacked about 50 feet high.
- Get in loser, we’re tripling nuclear energy
BREAKING IN NYC: WORLD'S BIGGEST BANKS PLEDGE SUPPORT FOR NUCLEAR Banks and funds totaling $14 TRILLION in assets have just signed an unprecedented statement in support of nuclear power. They'll be presenting the pledge to support the goal of tripling nuclear THIS MORNING at - Replying to @MadiHilly...which is that policymakers and the public think that nuclear waste has a problem! The prevailing belief is that nuclear waste is uniquely dangerous and that the industry doesn't know what to do with it.
- Replying to @MadiHillyThe best part: when the fuel rods are done in the reactor, over 90% of the potential energy from the uranium is still left in them! That means we can recycle the spent fuel and turn it into new fuel, which is already routinely done in Europe, Russia, and Japan.
- WHAT ABOUT CHERNOBYL? Chernobyl the accident shows that, even in a worst-case scenario, the health and environmental risks of nuclear are small. Chernobyl the cultural phenomenon shows how dangerous nuclear can be. Here’s what you need to know:
- Replying to @MadiHillyMost of the industrial waste we manage never gets less toxic over time. Not in a million years. Not even in a billion. Mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, etc. are all dangerous and remain so forever. In rich countries, this waste is gathered up and stored without fanfare.
- Replying to @MadiHillyLet's start with uniquely dangerous. The main concern associated with spent nuclear fuel – radioactivity – diminishes with time. About 40 years after it's done making power, the heat and radioactivity of the fuel bundle will have fallen by over 99%.
- Replying to @MadiHillyNuclear waste concerns are overwhelmingly focused on “high-level waste”, which is almost entirely spent nuclear fuel. Nuclear fuel is made up of metal tubes containing small pellets of uranium. These tubes are gathered into bundles for loading and unloading into the reactor.
- Replying to @MadiHillyRather than being honest and explaining that 1) radiation does not make nuclear waste uniquely dangerous and 2) dry cask storage at the plant is safe, cheap, and has a flawless record, the industry has attempted to offer technical solutions to what is a political problem.
- Replying to @MadiHillySo what to do about the true nuclear waste problem? The Netherlands offers a compelling solution: encourage people to visit! Their facility is open to the public, contains an educational museum, and is decorated with large-scale art installations."WHAT ABOUT THE WASTE?" Nuclear energy's got EXCELLENT waste: there's almost none of it, and it announces its presence reliably even w/ cheap detectors. The Dutch have solved it: make the place with the waste HIGHLY ACCESIBLE, CLASSY, and most of all, FUN. @ParisOrtizWines
00:00 - Replying to @MadiHillyYucca Mountain is an anti-scientific dumpster fire, eating up public wealth. It would save 0 lives, protect against 0 injuries, avoid 0 cancer, and give the false impression that nuclear waste is the most dangerous waste. $15 billion flushed for no benefit.
- Replying to @MadiHillyScientists and engineers abuse public trust when they pretend we must bury nuclear waste deep underground or put it in the middle of a desert. Any "expert" who believes this is, at best, confused about the role of science and engineering in advising public policy.
