• SomeLemmyUser
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    All the ones you mentioned except nuclear don’t create radiation waste at all…

    • ultracritical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Uranium is present in coal in high enough quantities that a coal plant releases more uranium to the environment then an equivalent nuke plant burns in its reactor, and mining for materials for solar panels creates literal mountains of thorium salts and other thorium contaminated debris.

      Nuclear plants have the unfortunate position that they actually have to manage their nuclear waste due to its concentration. It’s not actually hard to store the waste permanently from a technical perspective, it’s just difficult to have the political will to actually do it.

      • SomeLemmyUser
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        In germany we have, after 20 years of search, not one safe place. The one we have for temporal storage is expected to start leaking soon…

      • SomeLemmyUser
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        The source you give is comparing the direct surrounding of opperating power plants, it is not talking about the nuclear waste. no on argues living near an (safely) operating power plant is too dangerous, its that you get nuclear waste which is the problem. Sure you can wheel it of to somewhere else, but then its a problem there.

        • passiveaggressivesonar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          I just want to see a comparison between the waste, that’s all. If it really is worse I’ll accept it as worse

          I can imagine It’s easier to manage nuclear waste than fly ash