We could grind nuclear waste from current nuclear plants into fine powder and intentionally blow it into the atmosphere and still cause fewer deaths than coal, as well as cause the release of less radioactive material, as the coal industry causes huge amounts of uranium dust to be released in the air.
So as it stands, if we look at the real world instead of some hypothetical future, we continue to depend on types of power that causes not just the release of more harmful material, but the release of more radioactive material than nuclear.
If we get to a point where we have fully supplanted fossil fuels, and we need to consider whether to continue building nuclear or replace it with alternatives, then the situation may look different, but at the moment anything that slows the replacement of things like coal causes massive amounts of harm, both environmentally and in killing people.
We could have a Chernobyl a year, and it'd still cause us less harm than the continued dependence on coal.
> We could grind nuclear waste from current nuclear plants into fine powder and intentionally blow it into the atmosphere and still cause fewer deaths than coal, as well as cause the release of less radioactive material, as the coal industry causes huge amounts of uranium dust to be released in the air.
How does the math work on this? It seems... hyperbolic.
Coal contains traces of uranium, which gets released during burning. The uranium released in such way would have been sufficient to generate the energy obtained from burning coal if it used for fission instead [0].
So indeed, now we disperse the nuclear fuel in the atmosphere and freaking out about it much less then when instead it is being processed in a plant, and coal left alone.
Look up fly ash. Orders of magnitude more fly ash is produced than waste from nuclear plants, and it contains high concentrations of uranium and thorium.
While plants in e.g the US now captures most of it, huge quantities are still released into the air especially in countries with lower environmental standards.
But even places where it doesn't get released that just means having to deal with far more radioactive waste than nuclear plants produces.
Naturally occurring radioactivity in coal ash means that coal burning power plants release far more radioactivity into our environment than nuclear plants do. In fact, if you want to get the least amount of radioactivity into your body, the safest place is behind the shielding of a nuke plant, because it would also protect you from naturally occuring radiation.
If you add up the total of radioactive elements in Bequerels released annually by coal plants and then assume 100% of all waste from power generating plants could be ground up and released and count that up, the amount of radioactivity from nuclear plants would still be less than coal.
We burn a LOT of coal, and despite the media's portrayal of how much a problem radioactive waste is, it's very overblown for power generating plants. Weapons production is another matter, but we've already been trying to stop that from happening for years.
There exists coal with more fissile energy, in the form of heavy isotopes such as thorium and uranium, than it has chemical energy, in the form of carbon-carbon bonds.
This is then burned in power plants, releasing the radioactive material into the atmosphere, and leaching it into groundwater from exposed piles of fly ash.
So as it stands, if we look at the real world instead of some hypothetical future, we continue to depend on types of power that causes not just the release of more harmful material, but the release of more radioactive material than nuclear.
If we get to a point where we have fully supplanted fossil fuels, and we need to consider whether to continue building nuclear or replace it with alternatives, then the situation may look different, but at the moment anything that slows the replacement of things like coal causes massive amounts of harm, both environmentally and in killing people.
We could have a Chernobyl a year, and it'd still cause us less harm than the continued dependence on coal.