• DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Toxicity I believe is about equal. Storage requirements are a bit stricter for nuclear in terms of storage container requirements, but much much much less in terms of storage space. Overall, it is much cheaper to safely dispose of the nuclear waste then waste from solar power.

    Note: radiation is not toxicity.

    • hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Thanks for this picture-perfect post of a nuke-stan / nuke-bot

      Toxicity I believe is about equal.

      I generally try to respect other peoples religion but yours is a threat to the ecosphere. I believe you know your statement is bullshit.

      Storage requirements are a bit stricter for nuclear in terms of storage container requirements

      People opposed to nuclear know this already but why do you think that is?

      Follow up: How long does it need to be safely stored? Please note the number of years.

      Humanity is about 300.000 years old, the Pyramids of Gizeh were build about 4600 years ago, the Vandals sacked Rome 1569 years ago, WW2 ended about 80 years ago. Now compare the those times with the time radioactive waste needs to be safely stored (and it definitely isn’t at the moment).

      Note: radiation is not toxicity.

      FYI: There are generally five types of toxicities: chemical, biological, physical, radioactive and behavioural.

      To be fair radioactive toxicity stands a bit out because it is (in your wording) much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much more toxic than anything else possibly including ‘forever chemicals’.

      Nuclear energy is not cheaper nor safer, you’re just kicking a toxic, radioactive can down the road.