What the world's first nuclear waste ‘tomb' in Finland could mean for nuclear energy
-
Loading... - Pippa Bruni
- 25 Jul 2022
- 93 Views
- 0 Like
- 0 Comment
The imminent catastrophic threats of climate change, as well as the most recent energy shortages and price hikes due to war and cartels, highlight the need for urgent action toward transitioning away from fossil fuels. But this transition to renewable energy sources could take decades, depending on where you live, and should ideally involve nuclear energy as an intermediate step or even as a permanent hedge in case something goes wrong — for instance, if we get bogged down by intractable battery shortages.
One single golf-ball-sized lump of uranium could supply a lifetime’s energy needs for a typical person, equivalent to 56 tanker trucks of natural gas, and 800 elephant-sized bags of coal — all without the dreadful drawbacks of using fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is responsible for 99.8% fewer deaths than brown coal, 99.7% fewer than coal, 99.6% fewer than oil, and 97.5% fewer than gas. Most of these fossil fuel deaths come from pollution.
The problem is that nuclear energy generally has a largely undeserved bad reputation with the general public, which previously has led to the postponement or outright cancellation of the construction of several proposed new nuclear reactors across the world due to rising pressure from environmental groups.
The risk of a nuclear power plant accident is actually very low and declining, based on data from more than six decades of operation. But if we were to pinpoint the major drawback of nuclear energy, besides the cost, of course, it would be the problem of nuclear waste.
Uranium mill tailings, spent reactor fuel, and other radioactive wastes can remain radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years. Worldwide, experts estimate there are thousands of metric tons of used nuclear fuel that sit in more or less temporary storage containers until we find a better and safer place to deal with it. Read More...
