3 ms·
I follow along regarding CO2, because it has the most massive cost. However, I am not convinced that the blades are near the problems regarding nuclear waste
by gefhfff 5y ago
I follow along regarding CO2, because it has the most massive cost.
However, I am not convinced that the blades are near the problems regarding nuclear waste
The question is how long do you have to deal with that waste and how much it costs for that entire duration.
- agent327 5y agoNo, that's not the question at all. You are lumping together all forms of nuclear waste, and applying the long-term storage requirement of the least dangerous waste to the dangerous waste that is only radioactive for a few decades. Pretending that there is even a need to securely store material for millennia when equally radioactive products are found everywhere in the Earth's crust is disingenuous. Below a certain level it isn't any more dangerous than loads of other chemicals we have lying around that nobody cares about.