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)
And speaking of Germany you should be also aware that you already have *two* deep geologic repositories in Herfa-Neurode and Zielitz.
Of course nobody cares because they are "only" used to store extremely toxic mercury, arsenic and cyanide waste but no nuclear waste.
The only difference is that nuclear will lose toxicity in 100 years while chemical waste will be just as toxic in a million of years.
https://www.kpluss.com/en-us/our-business-products/waste-management/underground-disposal/
