Because people have a completely wrong impression of the scale of nuclear waste. In the Netherlands there is a museum inside their nuclear waste repository - you can literally walk right up to the barrels containing nuclear waste, it's open to the members of the public.
And I don't remember the exact number, but I'm sure I read somewhere that all of world's highly radioactive nuclear waste(spent fuel) could fit in several olympic swimming pools - while this coal power plant produced 1000 tonnes(!!!!) a day(!!!) of coal soot. The scale is just completely incomparable. But people look at Chernobyl or Fukishima and think that the exclusion zones created by those events are inherently a feature of nuclear power - when they are not.
Radioactive clouds and exclusion zones are inherent features of nuclear power the way that buffer overflows and remote code execution are inherent features of C.
True, but if you add up Chernobyl, Fukushima and all other nuclear disasters per MHw generated coal is still many times more harmful and killed way more people.
And of course Chernobyl couldn’t have happened in the US, France, Britain or any other country run by extremely incompetent halfwits.
Those arguments are misguided or even deliberately misleading.
People don't die from flooding because of dams, people die from flooding despite dams. Deaths from flooding would not vanish (or even decrease) if we stopped using hydroelectricity/building dams.
Hiroshima was not significantly contaminated by radioactive material because the bomb dropped on it was not designed to do so (compare later speculative Cobalt-60 based designs), and the low amount of fissile material made incidental contamination a non-issue.
> People don't die from flooding because of dams, people die from flooding despite dams. Deaths from flooding would not vanish (or even decrease) if we stopped using hydroelectricity/building dams.
The floods are significantly worse because of the dams.
Water may naturally pool in areas but it doesn't pool to the degree necessary for hydropower which is why the dam is built. This causes 2 problems.
1) The construction of the dam will flood a ton of land upstream of the dam. If you've been to the beach you'll notice that the water doesn't need to go up or down very much for a ton of area to be flooded so in order to get that extra space.
2) You've now stored a ton of water upstream that will make any dam failure worse than a natural flood because you have all the rain from the rainstorm and the water stored before the rainstorm that's in the flood.
---
However, I'm still pro-hydro because uh, electricity is nice and you can mitigate flood issues better than cancer.
> The floods are significantly worse because of the dams.
No they are not.
Dams mitigate damage during floods because you have buffer capacity and control over outflow. Without dams, you get uncontrolled flooding every single time that there is a lot of rain. With dams, you only get uncontrolled flooding on dam failure, which tends to happen less often than... heavy rain.
> The construction of the dam will flood a ton of land upstream of the dam. If you've been to the beach you'll notice that the water doesn't need to go up or down very much for a ton of area to be flooded so in order to get that extra space.
Yes, large water reservoirs need large amounts of space. That is a completely different argument from flood risk, though, and those costs are negotiated on before the dam is even built.
> People don't die from flooding because of dams, people die from flooding despite dams. Deaths from flooding would not vanish (or even decrease) if we stopped using hydroelectricity/building dams.
wat
--- start quote ---
In August 1975, the Banqiao Dam and 61 others throughout Henan, China, collapsed following the landfall of Typhoon Nina.
The dam collapse created the third-deadliest flood in history which affected 12,000 km2 (3 million acres) with a total population of 10.15 million, including around 30 cities and counties, with estimates of the death toll ranging from 26,000 to 240,000.
The flood also caused the collapse of 5 million to 6.8 million houses
--- end quote ---
This was literally caused by dam failures. And yet somehow we still build hydroelectric plants.
By your flawed logic we should've stopped building them years ago. Because multiple human deaths, destruction and ecological disaster are literally built into every single dam.
Just in 2018 the Oroville Dam failure caused the evacuation of 180 000 people. That's more people than were evacuated due to Fukushima.
That dam was built to prevent and mitigate damage during floods (besides producing electricity).
Was it built to insufficient specifications? Absolutely! But building less dams does NOT lead to less victims during flooding, because the flooding then just happens completely uncontrolled. Spoiler alert: "Just not build any dams" doesn't do shit against flooding if you get 1m of rainfall within a day, and the people just die from starvation/infectious diseases instead (which is the source of >50% of the victims in the Banqiao incident, too), possibly in even greater numbers, because you have flooding everywhere.
> Just in 2018 the Oroville Dam failure caused the evacuation of 180 000 people. That's more people than were evacuated due to Fukushima.
Are you suggesting that we would have to evacute less people during rain if we did not build dams? Because that is the critical flaw in your argument that I'm pointing out.
> Are you suggesting that we would have to evacute less people during rain if we did not build dams
Are you suggesting that more people would have died had we replaced all coals plants with nuclear decades ago?
Because obviously the opposite is true.
Damns reduce the amount of people who drown during natural floods. Nuclear power reduces the amount of pollution and CO2 emissions (since people are just as likely to stop living in flood plains as accepting not having access to electricity)
> Are you suggesting that more people would have died had we replaced all coals plants with nuclear decades ago?
Absolutely not, and I'm not sure what I said that made you assume that.
On that topic: I do believe that the economics for nuclear power are bad, will get worse comparatively and were never really good in the first place.
I think there is a good reason that basically only a single nation on the planet went "full nuclear" for electric power (France), which they achieved basically thanks to ignoring the cost and pushing it as strategical measure instead (=> energy indepencence, specifically from oil).
If everyone around them had went full nuclear the (economical) situation would be even worse (because everyone would compete for hydro/peak power and/or forced into operating plants in load-following mode).
In conclusion: I think massive nuclear buildout would have made a lot of sense to mitigate climate change 30 years ago (but that was not really a realistic option then), and jumping on that bandwagon is no longer worth it. Just going for wind, solar, batteries and improved grid connectivity simply makes more sense now almost everywhere in my view.
This misses the point. Hydroelectric dams have a big negative cost component in human lives, because they protect a significant amount of them every single time there are flooding conditions (e.g. heavy rain) and the dam doesn't fail (which is obviously the huge majority of cases).
Nuclear plants, on the other hand, protect a negligible amount of lives during floods, because they make for impractical shelters :P
In my expeience, comparison in "lethality" between hydroelectricity and nuclear power are only ever made by people that are uninformed on flood management and/or want to push an agenda, and I wanted to provide a counterpoint to that.
IIRC, and I forget where I know this from so it might be bullshit, but the energy required to live a lifetime at a western lifestyle creates a grapefruit sized volume of the "highly dangerous don't go near this" type waste.
Fun fact: in the UK low risk nuclear plant waste (for example workers' overalls) is bundled up and buried with... coal plant ash. Which is, of course, far more radioactive than the waste it is supposed to be protecting against. This was the case 15 years ago, may have changed since the UK has removed coal from its generation mix.
Why do you claim the coal ash is intended to be "protecting against" the nuclear plant waste and not just different types of radioactive waste being buried together?
Coal ash is not classed as radioactive and it was abundant and cheap as a useless by-product of burning coal. The point is more that things classed as "low level" waste from nuclear are most often completely harmless, just regulated differently due to public understanding of the word "nuclear". As such, its disposal is heavily regulated.
Coal ash is commonly used in cement [1]. I would suspect the nuclear waste is being encased with cement to prevent its leakage with of course the punchline being that the encasement is more radioactive than its contents.
Nuclear energy seems less harmful because its damage is often invisible or long-term. However, uranium mining leaves behind 99.99% of the extracted material as radioactive waste, contaminating land and water for centuries. The mining sites are primarily in Indigenous territories—such as those of the Navajo in the U.S., First Nations in Canada, Aboriginal Australians, and communities in Niger and Kazakhstan—where local populations suffer from radiation exposure, heavy metal poisoning, and increased cancer rates. While nuclear disasters receive global attention, the ongoing destruction from uranium mining remains largely ignored—out of sight, out of mind.
99.99% of the extracted material that was already there? Conservation of matter suggests the area was already rich in uranium ores. And uranium operations are pretty small on the scale of mine operations. It also is common enough in modern mining practice to put the nasty stuff at the bottom of the waste dump, as close as possible to the conditions where it came from.
That seems unlikely to be causing any problems, especially without a source to gauge how political the studies are. We're talking populations that live close to the middle of nowhere, limited education, limited employment opportunities and questionable infrastructure. They're not going to get health and wellness outcomes as good as more urban populations.
> 99.99% of the extracted material that was already there? Conservation of matter suggests the area was already rich in uranium ores.
This is a misleading take on heavy metal mining in general.
Mining is not primarily harmful to local environments because it leads to more of the harmful extracted material; it is harmful because ore concentration is often rather low, and the extraction process produces millions of tons of toxic mineral slurry (=> more harmful than the ore), which has to be disposed somewhere (and preferably not in groundwater, which is the cheapest place to get rid of it).
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that mining hazards are the showstopper for nuclear energy, but this ("harmful ore was already there before it is mined") is the wrong dismissal for that argument.
Saying that a mine leaves behind 99.99% of the material is a misleading take. Material that has been there since before the dawn of recorded history remains there. It is a non-statement chosen for emotional effect. I might as well say that the overall concentration of uranium in the area is dropping because they just dug it up and sold a bunch off.
He didn't articulate what his problem with the situation was; it is a remarkably vague comment for an area that is extremely well understood. What exactly are these harms? Especially when considering that living remotely from a city is harmful to health outcomes they probably aren't particularly interesting.
Gathering the materials for solar panels is harmful and you don't see anyone seriously sitting down to have a whinge about it. Industrial society has costs. News at 11.
> Saying that a mine leaves behind 99.99% of the material is a misleading take.
This might be slightly overstated, but uranium at ore concentrations of 0.1% and under is mined commercially right now. Safely disposing of toxic byproducts of Uranium ore extraction and -concentration is already non-trivial in sufficiently regulated industrialized nations, situation in Kazakhstan or Africa is very obviously worse (or are you actually arguing that the operators there are gonna restore groundwater quality, and dispose of toxic byproducts in a permanently safe way at their own cost?)
> What exactly are these harms?
Again. The harm comes primarily from groundwater contamination, which is very hard to prevent because you are basically pumping some leaching agent into the ground, which is alreay invariably gonna affect groundwater quality. Even if that did not, you then need to dump slurry/brine byproducts from extraction somewhere (and the next river is gonna be the cheapest place).
> Gathering the materials for solar panels is harmful and you don't see anyone seriously sitting down to have a whinge about it. Industrial society has costs. News at 11.
People whine about environmental impact of lithium/rare earth mining bascially every single time that electrification of vehicles comes up (or wind turbines), primarily to then make bad arguments in favor of fossil fuels...
> Again. The harm comes primarily from groundwater contamination, which is very hard to prevent because you are basically pumping some leaching agent into the ground, which is alreay invariably gonna affect groundwater quality. Even if that did not, you then need to dump slurry/brine byproducts from extraction somewhere (and the next river is gonna be the cheapest place).
I could say that humans breath out CO2 and therefore are significant contributors to global pollution. It is not a real answer unless an order of magnitude estimate is attached. You're just noting that generic heavy metals mining pollutes; which is true but with Uranium mining it turns out pretty quickly that the harms are the most minor of any energy production method because the volumes of material are so small.
I don't think the anti-nuclear crowd wants to do that because as soon as they do they're probably going to end up looking foolish. There are situations like our Kazakhstani friend in this thread bought up where the uranium production turns out to be a relatively small component of a much more significant industrial pollution picture. They don't paint a compelling picture for avoiding nuclear power though, and misleading statements like pointing out that mines leave most local material behind are what they have to fall back on.
What materials cause less damage than uranium in the extraction process? IN absolute terms there aren't many. Most materials we require orders of magnitude more of the stuff than we need tonnes of uranium.
What's the uranium concentration of the waste though? If it's higher than the .1% natural concentration they're mining wouldn't they mine their waste piles? I'm failing to see how the waste has more uranium in it than the land did to begin with unless it was a case of the surface land people deal with being free of it.
> If it's higher than the .1% natural concentration they're mining wouldn't they mine their waste piles?
Your mental picture of the process is a bit off: Uranium mining happens mostly by pumping a leaching agent (typically some acid) into the ground, and extracting it elsewhere via wells. This is very obviously not helpful for groundwater quality.
And you are not extracting just Uranium (or even other "desirable" heavy metals)-- most of the radioactivity (>80%) is in economically uninteresting decay products, and you just want/need to get rid of those.
I live in one of the mentioned countries (Kazakhstan) very close to one the major (unenriched) uranium processing plants. It's in the very east of the country close to the border with China, you'll easily find information about it if you're interested.
It most definitely is causing problems, but you will not hear about it because: a) nobody gives a flying fuck about us, especially our own government, and b) very little research is being done because nobody important is interested in doing it.
Most of the money made by destroying our health and environment goes to Switzerland (i.e. Glencore), and they have no incentive to care about us.
I read one study by a grad student who managed to escape from here to a French university, and she used a scanning electron microscope to find very high levels of heavy metal pollution -- including uranium -- in tree leaves all around the plant. That's about it.
And here's a personal anecdote of what the reality is here: when I was in college, I was working for a few months with a group of researchers that were testing novel techniques of reducing particulate pollution from a local coal power plant. While we did see some positive results, the emission values (both before and after) were significantly higher than what is permitted by government emission standards, about 8-10 times as much. So we were "asked" (and complied -- you don't really say no to these things) to reduce numbers to acceptable levels and publish that. This makes for a pretty piss-poor study if you ask me, it's not really science.
I worry this is going to come off as overly combative; but you haven't gotten to the meat of my complaint here. What is the harm you are objecting to vis a vis the uranium?
The only actual evidence you're proffering is that there is heavy metals pollution "all around" the processing plant. That isn't much to go on. What sort of distances are we talking about? What does "very high" mean?
Sure, I was too impulsive myself, but it's really difficult to read dismissive comments when people all around you lose 10+ years of life expectancy to this "non-problem" just so that some guy in France can have his nuclear energy for cheap.
I think this is the study; I read it as a proper full-length thesis, but it also seems to have been condensed into a short paper:
Are there any mines involved in this study? There don't seem to be any mines involved here. I'm not even sure that most of the damage is being done by the Uranium processing, we seem to be looking at a heavy industrial district. I can't figure out where their colour scale comes from but it seems the high Uranium concentrations are quite localised to near the Uranium processing plant and the area is a witches brew of pollutants from all sorts of horrible industrial activities.
I wouldn't choose to live there, I give you that. Not convinced it is relevant to nuclear power debate though. The studiers seem to be drawing attention to the toxicity of the lead-zinc plant.
This goes to the core of my complaint against the anti-nuclear people. I think ignoring the Ag, As, Ba. Be, Co, Cr, Sb & Zn - and all the other elements in the study - and myopically focusing on the U is really misunderstanding what an industrial district does. They are unhealthy places.
You seem to misunderstand how mining pollution actually works.
When things like uranium are trapped in rocks they are typically immobile and not bioavailable. In most ground strata things things can be stabally held for millions of years. When humans mine the area we can cause what would take erosion millions of years in hours. For example blasting and mechanical splitting of rocks then loading them with equipment causes huge amounts of dust. Also in the process of exposing 'fresh' rock we cause sulfate materials to be exposed to water creating acids that mobilize metals.
Yet nuclear despite inherently being much less harmful weren’t historically that well tolerated.