Laying out key priorities for the EU’s upcoming Clean Industrial Deal, German Economy State Secretary Sven Giegold said on Monday (30 September) he wants the Commission to prioritise renewable energy, taking a tough line on nuclear power and France’s renewable targets.
Alongside a quicker roll-out of renewable energy facilitated by “further exemptions from [environmental impact] assessments,” Giegold outlined several other German priorities for the EU’s upcoming strategy.
Based on the 2030 renewable energy targets, the EU should also set up a 2040 framework, complemented by new, more ambitious targets for energy efficiency, he said.
“It should include new heating standards, a heat pump action plan and a renovation initiative,” he explained, noting a heat pump action plan was last shelved in 2023.
Hydrogen, made from renewables, should be governed by a “a pragmatic framework,” the German politician stressed, reiterating calls from his boss, Economy Minister Robert Habeck (Greens), to delay strict production rules into the late 2030s.
Well those timelines aren’t correct. The EPA says 10.000 years and that’s for the entire storage solution. It doesn’t matter that the caskets decay after a 2000 years, once the entire thing is encased in rock.
The concrete degradation doesn’t really apply, because caskets are specifically made with longevity in mind and aren’t just made out of concrete. Causes for concrete degradation is also exposure to water and mechanical stress. That doesn’t apply in a long term storage facility.
And we still have examples of Roman concrete around these days, made 2000 years ago. There are also natural nuclear reactors which are contained, so we know in principle containment is possible.
It may take 100.000 years for something to become completely inert, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t safe much earlier. And something with that long of a timeline doesn’t produce hardly any radiation to begin with. The dangerous stuff is much hotter and becomes safe within hundreds to thousands of years.
Do you read the articles linked? The EPA doesn’t give out the actual numbers, the numbers you use are for lightly toxic and radioactive material. The caskets will not last 200 years
encaseing isn’t a option, concrete expands when drying and would crush the containers of the material, wich is just making it easier for water to get in, furthermore concrete is Corrosive and should not touch the waste containers in general.
Roman concrete is the worst example you can give, its super bad at protecting against water, and it lasts because the concrete is actually not as well made as ours, ours is better mixed and can hold way more load, theirs had faults, wich is the reason why it’s still standing, water gets in, activates the hardening process again and “its fixed” its not safe to use that stuff for nuclear waste or any modern building.
And you again make a wrong call, it takes over a Million years to get most of the waste to be lead, the stable end product of uranium. The stuff isn’t safe before that state, even lead is still toxic, although more manageable, anything before is extremely toxic and is radiating. Its not safe after a given period, its safe after its tested safe, not a single second before that. Radiation isn’t a joke, especially prolonged exposure.
Some random Forbes article? No because what kind of source is that? I checked their sources and they were all dead.
Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage
They have caskets that last for at least 1800 years today, with better shit to come. The whole point is to store it in a location without any water.
The timelines you state are also totally incorrect. The EPA specifically states 10.000 years in their standards.
Edit: I read the Forbes article, it’s anti-nuclear propaganda without any sources.
Read this instead: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities