5 ms·

The waste is radioactive for many human lifetimes however. That's the piece that seems highly irresponsible to me: assigning radioactive waste management to man

The waste is radioactive for many human lifetimes however. That's the piece that seems highly irresponsible to me: assigning radioactive waste management to many future generations. IIRC, there are some reactors with waste which lasts less than a human lifetime, or generate waste which can be utilized or broken down with an additional reactor. I could get behind those. The solar waste problem is fixed with a recycling upcharge on purchase and some additional cost reduction on the technology. This is a tame problem compared to radioactive waste which will likely outlast the civilization which produced it, never mind the individuals.

yellowapple 8y ago
My impression from the article is that solar panels have similarly-severe byoroducts (maybe not specifically radioactive, but certainly not stuff I'd want seeping into my drinking water). We're already fucking over future generations with a massive carbon footprint. Replacing all that with nuclear would be objectively less bad.
- pfdietz 8y ago
  Yes, that is the impression the article is trying to give. It's too bad the article has to lie in order to give that impression.
manfredo 8y ago
Nuclear waste disposal is an extremely overblown challenge. There are already digs in place in Finland and the US with capacities to store centuries worth of nuclear waste, a mile underground. The concern that some future civilization will manage to dig so deep, in an area with no natural resources, crack open some of the waste caskets, and then die because they fail to figure out it is poisonous is one of the most ridiculously far fetched concerns. Contrast that extremely remote possibility with the certainty of pumping toxic greenhouse gases directly into our atmosphere. I cannot fathom why one would believe the former is preferable to the latter, but some countries like Germany seem to have made that conclusion.
- verall 8y ago
  > There are already digs in place in Finland and the US with capacities to store centuries worth of nuclear waste, a mile underground. And this is why nuclear waste disposal is _not_ an overblown challenge. Because even though there are already digs in place, almost all of the waste still sits right by in-use reactors. The US has been trying to fix this since the 80s, and afaik real progress has not been made since the bill to put it in Yucca mountain was killed in 2010. It might be a political challenge rather than a technical challenge, but it is an _extremely_ difficult political challenge that should be deeply considered when supporting nuclear energy. It is not really safe or cheap for it to stay above ground by reactors forever.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Yes, that's a good point. It is a significant challenge, but the challenge is overwhelmingly political rather than technical.

yellowapple 8y ago

My impression from the article is that solar panels have similarly-severe byoroducts (maybe not specifically radioactive, but certainly not stuff I'd want seeping into my drinking water). We're already fucking over future generations with a massive carbon footprint. Replacing all that with nuclear would be objectively less bad.

pfdietz 8y ago
Yes, that is the impression the article is trying to give. It's too bad the article has to lie in order to give that impression.

manfredo 8y ago

Nuclear waste disposal is an extremely overblown challenge. There are already digs in place in Finland and the US with capacities to store centuries worth of nuclear waste, a mile underground. The concern that some future civilization will manage to dig so deep, in an area with no natural resources, crack open some of the waste caskets, and then die because they fail to figure out it is poisonous is one of the most ridiculously far fetched concerns. Contrast that extremely remote possibility with the certainty of pumping toxic greenhouse gases directly into our atmosphere. I cannot fathom why one would believe the former is preferable to the latter, but some countries like Germany seem to have made that conclusion.

verall 8y ago
> There are already digs in place in Finland and the US with capacities to store centuries worth of nuclear waste, a mile underground. And this is why nuclear waste disposal is _not_ an overblown challenge. Because even though there are already digs in place, almost all of the waste still sits right by in-use reactors. The US has been trying to fix this since the 80s, and afaik real progress has not been made since the bill to put it in Yucca mountain was killed in 2010. It might be a political challenge rather than a technical challenge, but it is an _extremely_ difficult political challenge that should be deeply considered when supporting nuclear energy. It is not really safe or cheap for it to stay above ground by reactors forever.
- manfredo 8y ago
  Yes, that's a good point. It is a significant challenge, but the challenge is overwhelmingly political rather than technical.