Germany, Poland, Italy and Czechia account for 70% of EU CO2 emissions from the energy sector.
@kravietz
interesting, but a more complete analysis should also report about the other types of energy plant byproducts (e.g. italy choose not to have nuclear power plants)
Climate cares about CO2, not about some political or philosophical choices.
Nuclear waste loses toxicity over time and 100 years it's down to just 3%. Also it's stored in such tiny amounts that it can be safely stored without any problem. So it's a completely imaginary problem, that unfortunately results in irrational replacing of low-carbon nuclear power by high-carbon fossil gas in countries like Germany.
@kravietz @felippo The decaying of nuclear waste highly depends on the material used. There are many materials that are decaying way slower than you mentioned and i know of no power plant that uses materials that are decaying this fast. Also you have to think about the problem that the nuclear radiation is usually more dangerous, the faster it decays. (1/2)
@kravietz @felippo However, this does not mean, weak radiation is not dangerous. The non radioactive materials (concrete etc.) used in nuclear power plants also pose a threat because they start to radiate themselves after being exposed to nuclear radiation over a time. They will indeed be less dangerous in a few hundred years but until then they still pose a threat. Germany will have about 600.000 cubic meters of such waste until 2080. That is a lot, and we have no place to store them. (2/2)
@laufi @kravietz @felippo In addition to the problem of both kinds of radiation waste products during a few hundred years after a nuclear power plant is closed, it is even now dangerous to live near one (mutations during pregnancy, rivers get too hot etc), and in case of an accident, earth quake, plane crash or terrorist attack even more.
Sorry, but this is anti-scientific nonsense. A nuclear power plant releases close to zero radiation. A single coal-powered plant releases 100x more radioactive elements in fly ash. Rare earth element mines used to make PV release radioactive elements, just as oil and gas drilling does. And the most intense sources of radiation in our lives is... space and soil, which obviously also contain radioactive elements.
@kravietz @blueplanetslittlehelper @felippo i still think the problem is that we are talking about radiation as one thing, while different isotopes really have totally different properties. Natural radiation from soil and air is no real threat to us, because all life on this planet has been adapting to it for ages. Except, of courses, for special places, like caves.
@laufi @blueplanetslittlehelper @felippo
Absolutely yes, and this is why it's so important to resort to scientific data on radiation, which is very well studied, rather than general radiophobic scare. What really matters for human health is 1) absorbed dose, 2) concentration of particular isotopes in particular organs. This is why iodine isotopes are more dangerous than cesium for example.
This is the best lecture I've seen on this topic ever:
