2 ms·

Finland is building a nuclear waste repository right now in deep bedrock [1]. It's totally reasonable scientifically. And in the US we have those Permian salt d

Finland is building a nuclear waste repository right now in deep bedrock [1]. It's totally reasonable scientifically. And in the US we have those Permian salt deposits [2]. Commercial nuclear waste really isn't nearly the boogeyman that people make it out to be in pop culture. It's solid, sitting around in dry casks, can be put safely in geologic deposits, and has yet to hurt anyone as far as I'm aware. Meanwhile fossil fuel kills hundreds of thousands per year from air pollution and god knows how many from climate change and we're sitting here saying "but what about nuclear waste?" while looking at 24/7 baseload carbon-free fully-scalable technology that's as safe or safer than wind. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant

justatdotin 8y ago
> has yet to hurt anyone as far as I'm aware whoa, don't leap to conclusions: give it a few more thousand years
specialist 8y ago
That WIPP wiki entry reads like a strong argument to burn thru our stockpiles with TWR. Thanks for Onkalo reference. Maybe the Finns will prove more competent than us. Did I mention fossil fuels? No. Did I say TWR or fossil fuels? No. Any survivable future scenario is wind, solar, and if we're lucky bioreactors (carbon capture). It'd be nice if humans could be trusted with (non-TWR) nuclear. But we can't. And even if we could, anything started TODAY will be decades too late, so why bother. Meanwhile, feasible affordable wind and solar capacity is doubling every 30 (?) months. It's happening. Everyone forgets about the weapons. Assuming we survive to care, what are we going to do with all the decommissioned nukes? Answer: TWR. I'm befuddled why anyone supporting nuclear power would oppose TWR. More power. Less waste. Less proliferation risk. Probably makes too much sense. Or sounds like magic.

justatdotin 8y ago

> has yet to hurt anyone as far as I'm aware whoa, don't leap to conclusions: give it a few more thousand years

specialist 8y ago

That WIPP wiki entry reads like a strong argument to burn thru our stockpiles with TWR. Thanks for Onkalo reference. Maybe the Finns will prove more competent than us. Did I mention fossil fuels? No. Did I say TWR or fossil fuels? No. Any survivable future scenario is wind, solar, and if we're lucky bioreactors (carbon capture). It'd be nice if humans could be trusted with (non-TWR) nuclear. But we can't. And even if we could, anything started TODAY will be decades too late, so why bother. Meanwhile, feasible affordable wind and solar capacity is doubling every 30 (?) months. It's happening. Everyone forgets about the weapons. Assuming we survive to care, what are we going to do with all the decommissioned nukes? Answer: TWR. I'm befuddled why anyone supporting nuclear power would oppose TWR. More power. Less waste. Less proliferation risk. Probably makes too much sense. Or sounds like magic.