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 @laufi @felippo Nonsens, huh?
French npps, f.i. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricastin_Nuclear_Power_Plant use rivers and canals to cool, resulting in over 27°C warm water in the summer and thus algae pests and dying fish. Children living near nuclear plants have significantly more often (double!) leukemia https://www.bfs.de/DE/bfs/wissenschaft-forschung/ergebnisse/kikk/kikk-studie.html
German npps are old and sport cracks etc., but are used nevertheless, f.i. https://www.bund-bawue.de/themen/mensch-umwelt/atomkraft/neckarwestheim/, making little accidents the rule instead of the exception and increase the risk of a GAU.
@blueplanetslittlehelper @kravietz @felippo I have a split opinion on that. On the one hand, statistical correlation is no evidence by itself. On the other hand it is a strong indicator that there could be a connection. But still it is also very hard to actually measure radiation leaks in very small quantities. The cooling water could be an explanation, but i do not know of any evidence for it. There have been many small "accidents" in German NPPs, but they did not release radioactive materials.
@blueplanetslittlehelper @kravietz @felippo Source for claim unfortunately only in German:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_meldepflichtiger_Ereignisse_in_deutschen_kerntechnischen_Anlagen
There have been 0 INES3 errors or higher in the recent years.
@blueplanetslittlehelper @kravietz @felippo However, i think there is really no point in arguing about the safety of German NPPs. They are really taking huge efforts to prevent accidents but in the end, there is no absolute safety and there will always be a limited budget for this. Because of the high risk scenario if something goes wrong, this is a problem of political, personal and ethical choice. And i think, nobody should be forced to accept that risk.
@laufi @blueplanetslittlehelper @felippo
The problem is that you are *not* avoiding any risk. You are just replacing a nominal risk of nuclear accident in Germany with a massive risk of pollution from fossil coal, gas and renewable manufacturing.
