If nuclear waste was a manageable problem, there would be a solution for it in place, which there isn‘t.
Brilliant infographics on Nuclear vs Coal waste. Germany is in uproar about the former (a manageable problem that has never killed anyone) and silent on the latter (a key driver of climate change and air pollution morbidity and mortality) Thanks @Energy4Humanitypic.twitter.com/GY0QoholXm
82 proslijeđena tweeta
132 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
-
-
-
If there is a problem it is economic. Used fuel rods are >90% fuel. Removing the contaminants and recycling the fuel currently costs ~$200/lb, while virgin uranium is dirt cheap at $25/lb. As long as there's still room in the pool it is best to keep it and wait.
- Još 5 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Isn’t the CO2 understated? It seems to be. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
-
And doesn’t coal burning plants also release radiation, even if it’s small, it’s much more than a nuclear plant.
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
And that coal ash contains about ten times as much nuclear energy (in the form of trace uranium) as the chemical energy that was in the coal before it was burned. Mining the coal, extracting the uranium, and putting the coal back would yield more net energy than burning it.
- Još 2 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.