4 ms·

We could've if there was enough political will though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca

• klmadfejno 6y ago
  Do you want trains full of other cities' nuclear waste passing through your city?
  • cdash 6y ago
    Wouldn't care, its hardly dangerous.
  • gambiting 6y ago
    Is this like....a rhetorical question? Of course no one actively wants them, but it's just a thing to transport like any other. I also don't want sewage or slaughterhouse waste transported next to my house(very smelly) but it has to be done at some point. Let me ask you a question then - have you actually seen those railroad casks for nuclear waste? They are incredibly resilient, I'd be far less worried about having those travel through my city than living next to a 70 year old chemical plant(which I do).
  • dodobirdlord 6y ago
    Sure, nuclear waste isn’t sent for long term storage until it’s spent many years in a cooling pond radiating away the fastest-decaying and thus most dangerous components. After that it’s much less dangerous and frankly no more worrisome than plenty of industrial chemicals that are shipped around in traincars.
  • vonmoltke 6y ago
    "Trains full"? The US only produces 2,000 tonnes of spent fuel a year, and has only produced 83,000 tonnes in the entire history of its nuclear generation program[1]. That entire annual production, even accounting for the weight of shielding and other safety measures, would fit on a single train the size of a typical coal or oil train. [1] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • mechEpleb 6y ago
    You way overestimate how much nuclear waste is being produced.