Nuclear waste, a house without a toilet.

"One out of three Americans live within 50 miles of high-level nuclear waste," Oliver explained. "Some of which, like plutonium, is lethally dangerous and will be around for an incredibly long time … "To continue the toilet metaphor, we've basically been ****ting in bags, leaving them all over the house and praying that they don't leak."

Oliver noted some of the scarier examples of current nuclear storage sites. For example, one nuclear plant in California was built on a fault line, which the host joked sounds like the plot of a film "starring the Rock that you watch on a plane." Another hazard is leakage: At one plant in South Carolina, waste leaked into the Savannah River, which resulted in the "radioactive alligators" Tritagator and Dioxinator, named after the chemicals that poisoned them, tritium and dioxin.

Click to expand...

To continue the toilet metaphor, we've basically been ****ting in bags, leaving them all over the house and praying that they don't leak."

Click to expand...

Bergslagstroll said:

John Oliver had a good and a bit scary segment about nuclear waste and how the use of nuclear power and having nuclear weapons are like a house without toilet. That after almost seventy years USA still don’t a viable solution for storing nuclear wage. Their many other country like my country Sweden, lack a permanent solution.

There one reason for lack of solution is that any solutions that will be chosen will have huge costs, problems and risks. So, it will be a strong opposition to the proposed solutions. For example, the proposal of USA’s long term nuclear storage in the Yucca Mountain, Nevada have been permanently or at least temporarily stopped.

While at the same time the risks, costs and problems will continue to increase so long as there are no permanent solutions. Especially since the amount of nuclear waste is continuing to increase from nuclear power and nuclear weapons.



John Oliver on Why America Is Overdue for a 'Nuclear Toilet' - Rolling Stone

Click to expand...

joG said:

What would you say is worse?
- more nuclear waste
- more co2
- a lower lifestyle and a couple of hundreds of millions starvations?

Those are about the alternatives we presently have.

Click to expand...

Polar Bum said:

Better be a tough bag, some of that "poop" has a 15 million year half life.....

Click to expand...

joG said:

What would you say is worse?
- more nuclear waste
- more co2
- a lower lifestyle and a couple of hundreds of millions starvations?

Those are about the alternatives we presently have.

Click to expand...

Bergslagstroll said:

At least you should not build any more nuclear power plants then you don’t know how risky, costly and problematic the storage of nuclear waste will be. While at the same time building nuclear plants can be a lot costlier and take a lot more time than planned.

That in the Finland the cost of building of a nuclear reactors went from 3.2 billion euros to around 8.5 billion euros.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-finland-nuclear-olkiluoto-idUSKCN1AX2MA

While the first new nuclear power plant in UK is already projecting to both cost more and taking more time to build, even if it still ten years before the nuclear plant will be complete.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-budget-and-a-year-behind-schedule-edf-admits

That instead countries like Denmark, Egypt, India, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates are now all getting electricity from renewables at prices a lot lower than nuclear and fossil fuel energy.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ble-energy-costs-leads-to-record-global-boost

While at the same time there is a drastic technological development in both batteries and renewable energy. So hopefully you can see renewable more and more replacing both nuclear and fossil fuel, even if it still can take time.

Also, it a lot you can do to reduce the need for energy and still have a good quality of life. Like for example that most Swedish cities have district heating, their 80 % are from energy that would otherwise have gone to waste.

Energy Efficiency - Swedish Cleantech

Click to expand...

joG said:

Germany is missing its CO2 targets and commitments to a good extent but not only, because it is closing its nuclear plants.

There is no question that you can save energy. It was also demonstrated by Lomborg a few years ago that the costs were such at the time that the cost in lives in the third world of the misused reductions here would be inexcusable.

Luckily new technologies are becoming competitive and soon will make economic sense. This is bad for Greens, because it robs them of a great fear that they used to collect votes.

Click to expand...

Bergslagstroll said:

Germanies heavy investments in renewable energy have led to that renewable energy sources make economic sense a lot earlier. That government investments can be good at getting the economy of scale needed for the market to want to invest in new technologies. Also, Germany have combined their large investment in renewable energy with having a very strong economy.

Just like my country Sweden combine large investments in renewable energy and energy efficient with having a strong economy and being the best country for business according to Forbes.

https://sweden.se/nature/7-examples-of-sustainability-in-sweden/

How Sweden Became the World?s Most Sustainable Country: Top 5 Reasons

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...ost-other-countries-at-just-about-everything/

Also, the rapid development in renewable energy, batteries and other technologies makes it bad to invest in new nuclear plants. Because nuclear plants can take over ten years to build and after that decades of operations to cover all the cost.

Click to expand...

joG said:

What would you say is worse?
- more nuclear waste
- more co2
- a lower lifestyle and a couple of hundreds of millions starvations?

Those are about the alternatives we presently have.

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

I choose more CO2 as the lesser of the evils.

Click to expand...

joG said:

I am not sure your report on German CO2 exhaust is quite unbiased. But you are right that the large investment in alternative energy production was meant to drive innovation and create an industry for the future. Sadly the result was high costs of electricity for consumers, while the production of the plant has moved to China. The overproduction of electricity has pushed its price below zero at market on a number of occasions, while modern gas turbine plants have had to be closed causing staggering capital destruction. The low traded prices are not available to Germans and profit neighbors. If you look at the numbers, you will find that the co2 reductions have mainly come from closing down East German industry after the takeover and has stopped and even reversed in recent years.

As to Sweden? Are you trying to fun us? Sweden produces relatively little alternative energy, as far as I know and doesn't need to. Over 40 percent of electricity is Hydro and the same proportion is nuclear.

Click to expand...

Bergslagstroll said:

The concrete fact is that even with a lot of investment in renewable energy Germany still have a very strong economy. Also, Germany’s investment in renewable energy have contribute to the need economy scale that have renewable economy competitive with other fossil fuel sources. Also, that you can close nuclear power plants and still have an overproduction of energy.

Then you of course have a lot of positive and negative details. Like overproduction can be a problem but it also can lead to that neighboring countries can close dirty coal plants.

Also, Sweden’s C02 emission per capita is 4.6 tons per capita compared to USA that have an emission of 16.4. That at the same time Sweden have almost half its C02 emission since 1980. Sweden have also not build any new nuclear plants during that time but instead have close some reactors. That heating during the cold winters was before mostly from oil fired boilers while now it mostly from distric heating. There 90 percent of the energy comes from recycled or renewable energy.

Pardon Our Interruption

While of course we in Sweden can do more like for example increase wind and solar so we can close more nuclear reactors. While at the same decrease polution from the transport sector.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

What is the average commuting distance for a Swedish worker vs. a USA worker?

Much of these numbers have to do such factors.

There is the fact that they are capable of producing half the power they produce with hydroelectric dams. They also import about half the energy they use. Their carbon footprint for power is small because of hydro and imports. Then we shouldn't forget they use nuclear power, and have more ocean miles per capita than most countries too and use wave power too.

Places like the USA simply don't have enough rivers and ocean per capita to benefit from.

Click to expand...

Bergslagstroll said:

The concrete fact is that even with a lot of investment in renewable energy Germany still have a very strong economy. Also, Germany’s investment in renewable energy have contribute to the need economy scale that have renewable economy competitive with other fossil fuel sources. Also, that you can close nuclear power plants and still have an overproduction of energy.

Then you of course have a lot of positive and negative details. Like overproduction can be a problem but it also can lead to that neighboring countries can close dirty coal plants.

Also, Sweden’s C02 emission per capita is 4.6 tons per capita compared to USA that have an emission of 16.4. That at the same time Sweden have almost half its C02 emission since 1980. Sweden have also not build any new nuclear plants during that time but instead have close some reactors. That heating during the cold winters was before mostly from oil fired boilers while now it mostly from distric heating. There 90 percent of the energy comes from recycled or renewable energy.

Pardon Our Interruption

While of course we in Sweden can do more like for example increase wind and solar so we can close more nuclear reactors. While at the same decrease polution from the transport sector.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

False trichotomy.

Click to expand...

joG said:

Sweden produces over 80 percent of its power from nuclear and hydro, I think you will find. Of course its co2 emissions are low.
The German situation is more complex. But to say that an economy is doing energy policy right, when it is running on a massively underpriced currency, far too low rates, not paying for its security etc is daring.

Click to expand...

Bergslagstroll said:

Yes but Sweden use very little direct electric power for heating houses. That if we Sweds did the need for electricity would be much higher, there electric heating also is ineffecient way to heat houses. While Sweden's C02 pollution would be much higher if Sweden had countine with oil fueled boilers. That thanks to investment in distric heating, there 90 percent of the energy comes from recycled or renewable energy, Sweden have both drasticly decrease it's need of electricity and it's C0 pollution. While if the houses that stills have boilers the fuel have been changed into biofuel.

Click to expand...

joG said:

All I really wanted to point out was that a modern country that can fill 40 percent plus of its power requirements with hydro power plants is not one to use as an example for others. And, if an other 40 percent plus are produced from nuclear it sounds as though this is a country fashioned from the progressive ideas of the 1960s.

Click to expand...

joG said:

All I really wanted to point out was that a modern country that can fill 40 percent plus of its power requirements with hydro power plants is not one to use as an example for others. And, if an other 40 percent plus are produced from nuclear it sounds as though this is a country fashioned from the progressive ideas of the 1960s.

Click to expand...

Bergslagstroll said:

Sweden have almost half its C02 emission since 1980. Sweden have also not build any new nuclear plants but instead have close some reactors and don’t have had any significant increases of hydropower during that period. So, Sweden is an example that you can drastically reduce C02 pollution without any new nuclear power plants.

While yes if you look at the electricity production part of the energy sector it still mostly hydropower and nuclear power. That Sweden have made the big reduction in C02 pollution through carbon taxes, energy efficiency, recycled energy, biofuels, district heating and investments in alternatives to cars.

So, if you want to look at overall reduction of C02 without more nuclear power Sweden is a good example. While if you only want to look at investment in alternative energy other countries have done a lot more.

Click to expand...

longview said:

I am not sure Sweden is a good example, because the sample size is small, and they have more hydropower resources per capita that most places.

Click to expand...

Bergslagstroll said:

You are right that countries have different opportunities and challenges. While countries still can learn from Sweden how you can reduce C02 pollution through carbon taxes, energy efficiency, recycling, recycled energy, biofuels, district heating and investments in alternatives to cars. Then it comes to district heating can also work as cooling when needed. So, there can be opportunities for USA to expand its use of district heating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating

While if you want to look at countries that lack both hydropower and nuclear power and invested a lot in alternative energy you can look at Denmark. That they have also roughly halved their C02 pollution since 1980 and are now heavily investing in renewables energy.

Denmark runs entirely on wind energy for a day | The Independent

While of course you can argue that both Sweden and Denmark have benefits compared to USA. While USA have also benefits. Like for example you have deserts that can be good for solar power also USA is a less populated country than Denmark so you more areas suited for wind power compare to them.

Also, as I mentioned before USA have a lot of big cities, there big cities are much better suited for public transport than cars. While at the same time you have several densely populated corridors that would be good for high speed trains.

Click to expand...