5 ms·

Nuclear power requires that we have safe nuclear storage facilities for the next 10,000 years or so. That's a huge investment. Considering most Western governme

Nuclear power requires that we have safe nuclear storage facilities for the next 10,000 years or so. That's a huge investment. Considering most Western governments change hands every 4 years or so, then the vote to keep the nuclear storage facilities maintained must succeed at least 2500 times in a row. Also, do not forget that Fukashima is still an ongoing disaster that's only just recently begun to stabilize.

bb88 7y ago
Chernobyl was just restabilized after 30 years, and will have to be restabilized again in another 100.
- beerandt 7y ago
  No, the design lifespan of the new containment is 100 years, but decommissioning will be finished before then.
- selectodude 7y ago
  What do you mean by restabilized?
stale2002 7y ago
> requires that we have safe nuclear storage facilities for the next 10,000 years or so Not really, no. You should take a look at how many people die due to coal, and how much long term environmental damage coal is responsible for. Even in the worst case scenario of a Nuclear Accident, I would still rather that happen, than deal with the effects of coal.
specialist 7y ago
I can't separate civilian & military. Nor past, present, future. Nor the fissile material and all the byproducts. Nor the gathering (mining) and the disposal (reburying) of same. I'm strongly in favor of traveling wave reactors. We need more tools for reducing, mitigating our stockpiles. When the Hanford Nuclear Reservation's contaminants in the water table reach the Columbia River, everything downstream dies. For me, any discussion about new civilian nuclear is fullstop until all the other aspects are addressed. Meanwhile, we prop up the nuclear power we have during the transition to wind, solar.
cpeterso 7y ago
Dams do damage now, but at least they can be removed later if power needs change. The dammed area and rivers can restored. "3 Dams to Be Removed in American West to Restore Rivers A new $50 million fund will help communities remove “deadbeat dams,” starting in California, Oregon, and Washington." https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/11/dam-removal-nelson-dam-matiliha-rogue-river-hewlett-foundation-open-rivers/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/11/dam-removal-...
driverdan 7y ago
> Also, do not forget that Fukashima is still an ongoing disaster that's only just recently begun to stabilize. Reactor design has changed significantly since Fukashima was built. Newer reactors are far safer.
- tomatotomato37 7y ago
  Fukashima is older than Chernobyl in fact, by 5 years
  - beerandt 7y ago
    One is high pressure water, the other is molten salt.
coldacid 7y ago
Fuk_u_shima.
- cmroanirgo 7y ago
  Sorry. It took more than a moment to realise this was a call for a spelling correction. I can't edit the parent, but thanks, it was fat fingers.
asdff 7y ago
Most nuclear waste is stored on areas that are already severely irradiated, more so than they could be just from nuclear waste. There are plenty of places like that after the cold war nuclear tests.

bb88 7y ago

Chernobyl was just restabilized after 30 years, and will have to be restabilized again in another 100.

beerandt 7y ago
No, the design lifespan of the new containment is 100 years, but decommissioning will be finished before then.
selectodude 7y ago
What do you mean by restabilized?

stale2002 7y ago

> requires that we have safe nuclear storage facilities for the next 10,000 years or so Not really, no. You should take a look at how many people die due to coal, and how much long term environmental damage coal is responsible for. Even in the worst case scenario of a Nuclear Accident, I would still rather that happen, than deal with the effects of coal.

specialist 7y ago

I can't separate civilian & military. Nor past, present, future. Nor the fissile material and all the byproducts. Nor the gathering (mining) and the disposal (reburying) of same. I'm strongly in favor of traveling wave reactors. We need more tools for reducing, mitigating our stockpiles. When the Hanford Nuclear Reservation's contaminants in the water table reach the Columbia River, everything downstream dies. For me, any discussion about new civilian nuclear is fullstop until all the other aspects are addressed. Meanwhile, we prop up the nuclear power we have during the transition to wind, solar.

cpeterso 7y ago

Dams do damage now, but at least they can be removed later if power needs change. The dammed area and rivers can restored. "3 Dams to Be Removed in American West to Restore Rivers A new $50 million fund will help communities remove “deadbeat dams,” starting in California, Oregon, and Washington." https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/11/dam-removal-nelson-dam-matiliha-rogue-river-hewlett-foundation-open-rivers/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/11/dam-removal-...

driverdan 7y ago

> Also, do not forget that Fukashima is still an ongoing disaster that's only just recently begun to stabilize. Reactor design has changed significantly since Fukashima was built. Newer reactors are far safer.

tomatotomato37 7y ago
Fukashima is older than Chernobyl in fact, by 5 years
- beerandt 7y ago
  One is high pressure water, the other is molten salt.

coldacid 7y ago

Fuk_u_shima.

cmroanirgo 7y ago
Sorry. It took more than a moment to realise this was a call for a spelling correction. I can't edit the parent, but thanks, it was fat fingers.

asdff 7y ago

Most nuclear waste is stored on areas that are already severely irradiated, more so than they could be just from nuclear waste. There are plenty of places like that after the cold war nuclear tests.