3 ms·
> "render a large area uninhabitable for a century". I've never really understood this argument. Even if we set aside 1000 square miles of land for waste dispo
by mbell 7y ago
> "render a large area uninhabitable for a century".
I've never really understood this argument. Even if we set aside 1000 square miles of land for waste disposal, that's a rounding error in the amount of uninhabitable land on the planet. It's probably even a rounding error in land that has been made uninhabitable by humans for similarly long time spans.
- PeCaN 7y agoNot waste disposal, nuclear disasters. I think the waste problem is awkward but far from a dealbreaker for nuclear energy, especially with breeder reactors and other more efficient designs. The problem is that even though nuclear reactors work the overwhelming majority of the time, such that disasters are practically a rounding error, when they happen they're rather spectacular.
- ChrisLomont 7y agoThe most spectacular one so far won’t render a place uninhabitable for a century, and it’s a terribly old design. Where is the evidence of your century of uninhabitable failure mode going forward?