3 ms·
This is very dismissive and even if true, not really what I'm talking about. I found this article in Scientific American on spent fuel interesting. https://www
by jay_kyburz 6y ago
This is very dismissive and even if true, not really what I'm talking about.
I found this article in Scientific American on spent fuel interesting. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-let...
I think dry casks are dangerous "forever" and therefore the costs of securing and managing them is effectively infinite.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y agoOk, if we are talking about 'forever', just put it into the subduction zone of the tectonic plates. In a few million years it'll be deep in the mantle, which is far more hazardous to humans than the disposed nuclear waste.
- jay_kyburz 6y agoOk sure, how much does that cost? First we need to invent the tech, and find a zone that is stable and won't leak, and we have to be super-duper sure of it, then you need to transport the dry casks there and lower them into the mantle. But the facility still needs armed guards "forever" so that terrorists or rogue states can't go and get some radioactive magma and use it as a weapon.