And at the same time, please label wood burning and pellets as non green and bad for health and start taxing those into oblivion together with fossil.
ANd of course belgium would keep the ban on this green energy source.
Green, no, because of limited uranium supply (we cannot make new uranium at the same rate we consume it), terrible mining (both ecological and humanitarian), waste problem to solved by future generations and so, but deffinitly a lot more climate friendly than fossil fuel.
Yes nuclear energy doesnt have any CO2, but that doesn’t make it green, neither a good sustainable solution imo. Although I am sure that they have the highest safety standards only one thing needs to go wrong to create a big disaster (look at Fukushima, they also thought they were safe and green). All this is without mentioning about the waste that will sit there for thousands and thousands of years… I think we can do better….
[deleted]
it’s better than coal, but i wouldn’t go as far as calling it green, it still has some massive impact with mining the fuel, processing and the nuclear waste. Putting it on the same list as hydro or something feels wrong
I don’t get how the greenwashing of nuclear energy has become so effective.
You can explain away all you want, but any currently running nuclear power plant produces waste that has to be stored for 100 000+ years. Some even over 1 million years. That’s a timescale I can’t even begin to comprehend.
How can people call this green? Because there’s no CO2 emmision? But otherwise, that’s simply ignoring the facts.
And don’t start about all the research that exists that will reduce or remove waste. AFAIK there’s no currently running commercial reactor that does not produce waste and there won’t be any in the near future.
Yes, I absolutely want the research into nuclear power production without or with very little waste to continue, but don’t call it clean in its current state.
Edit: I guess the downvotes without reply sort-of proves my point?
For the naïve: this has jack shit to do with nuclear energy as being good for the environment, but everything with the fact that France is heavily invested in nuclear energy.
We are at a crossroads, now is not the time to add fossil fuel energy like the government wants to do by suppressing nuclear energy by 2030.
Gas is the least horrible fossil fuel but if we go that route we will be one of the only European country to raise their carbon emissions in the decade to come.
Nuclear energy has it’s problems but at least it doesn’t impact climate change and that is the most pressing matter.
Why is this crossposted in r/belgium? “Brussels” here means “European Commission”, and Belgium is not one of the ten countries that support the proposal.
Belgium should abandon its commitment to denuclearization. It always was a policy based mainly on sentiment, we cannot sacrifice decarbonization to this green shibboleth.
I see a few people talk about the nuclear waste problem. In the near future, it is really not an issue because we have so much space to store it in deep bedrock that barely moves (in the near future). Look up the actual size of the nuclear waste we have produced so far. It is perfectly manageable.
There are also good indications that we will retroactively solve the nuclear waste problem in the future (e.g. in the next 500 years). For example, we may learn more about nuclear physics and find efficient ways to recycle the waste rods. A 100 years ago we barely knew that electrons existed. In 100 years from now, who knows what we learn? It’s a gamble to say “we will be able to remove nuclear waste in the future”, but I would argue it’s a much safer bet than “we will be able to restore the biodiversity and nature we lose due to global warming”.
Finally !
I don’t see how this is a good thing? France exports nuclear energy to Belgium and they aren’t using state of the art plants that minimize waste when they do. This is’t exactly motivated by their concern for the environment. I’m also not entirely convinced by minister Van der Straeten her plan to use a few choice gas plants while transitioning to renewable energy, but it was given the green light by the European Commission, was it not?
This seems like a push to retain the status quo of the energy dependency of Belgium without the promise of revitalizing energy infrastructure to a more modern state where it minimizes waste. We’ve been stuck in this status quo for decades now and it has only served to make energy providers complacent.
👏
How is nuclear energy green? Is nuclear waste good for the environment now
17 comments
That’s because it is one. 🙂
Well duh…
And at the same time, please label wood burning and pellets as non green and bad for health and start taxing those into oblivion together with fossil.
ANd of course belgium would keep the ban on this green energy source.
Green, no, because of limited uranium supply (we cannot make new uranium at the same rate we consume it), terrible mining (both ecological and humanitarian), waste problem to solved by future generations and so, but deffinitly a lot more climate friendly than fossil fuel.
Yes nuclear energy doesnt have any CO2, but that doesn’t make it green, neither a good sustainable solution imo. Although I am sure that they have the highest safety standards only one thing needs to go wrong to create a big disaster (look at Fukushima, they also thought they were safe and green). All this is without mentioning about the waste that will sit there for thousands and thousands of years… I think we can do better….
[deleted]
it’s better than coal, but i wouldn’t go as far as calling it green, it still has some massive impact with mining the fuel, processing and the nuclear waste. Putting it on the same list as hydro or something feels wrong
I don’t get how the greenwashing of nuclear energy has become so effective.
You can explain away all you want, but any currently running nuclear power plant produces waste that has to be stored for 100 000+ years. Some even over 1 million years. That’s a timescale I can’t even begin to comprehend.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management)
How can people call this green? Because there’s no CO2 emmision? But otherwise, that’s simply ignoring the facts.
And don’t start about all the research that exists that will reduce or remove waste. AFAIK there’s no currently running commercial reactor that does not produce waste and there won’t be any in the near future.
Yes, I absolutely want the research into nuclear power production without or with very little waste to continue, but don’t call it clean in its current state.
Edit: I guess the downvotes without reply sort-of proves my point?
For the naïve: this has jack shit to do with nuclear energy as being good for the environment, but everything with the fact that France is heavily invested in nuclear energy.
We are at a crossroads, now is not the time to add fossil fuel energy like the government wants to do by suppressing nuclear energy by 2030.
Gas is the least horrible fossil fuel but if we go that route we will be one of the only European country to raise their carbon emissions in the decade to come.
Nuclear energy has it’s problems but at least it doesn’t impact climate change and that is the most pressing matter.
Why is this crossposted in r/belgium? “Brussels” here means “European Commission”, and Belgium is not one of the ten countries that support the proposal.
Belgium should abandon its commitment to denuclearization. It always was a policy based mainly on sentiment, we cannot sacrifice decarbonization to this green shibboleth.
I see a few people talk about the nuclear waste problem. In the near future, it is really not an issue because we have so much space to store it in deep bedrock that barely moves (in the near future). Look up the actual size of the nuclear waste we have produced so far. It is perfectly manageable.
There are also good indications that we will retroactively solve the nuclear waste problem in the future (e.g. in the next 500 years). For example, we may learn more about nuclear physics and find efficient ways to recycle the waste rods. A 100 years ago we barely knew that electrons existed. In 100 years from now, who knows what we learn? It’s a gamble to say “we will be able to remove nuclear waste in the future”, but I would argue it’s a much safer bet than “we will be able to restore the biodiversity and nature we lose due to global warming”.
Finally !
I don’t see how this is a good thing? France exports nuclear energy to Belgium and they aren’t using state of the art plants that minimize waste when they do. This is’t exactly motivated by their concern for the environment. I’m also not entirely convinced by minister Van der Straeten her plan to use a few choice gas plants while transitioning to renewable energy, but it was given the green light by the European Commission, was it not?
This seems like a push to retain the status quo of the energy dependency of Belgium without the promise of revitalizing energy infrastructure to a more modern state where it minimizes waste. We’ve been stuck in this status quo for decades now and it has only served to make energy providers complacent.
👏
How is nuclear energy green? Is nuclear waste good for the environment now