4 ms·

> Or, we could just give Nevada $50B and ask them to take on the risk for the next 100kyears. I wonder what the reasonable risk-adjusted cost of burying this w

> Or, we could just give Nevada $50B and ask them to take on the risk for the next 100kyears. I wonder what the reasonable risk-adjusted cost of burying this waste in Nevada would be. The odds of a failure are probably pretty low, and the odds of a failure that leeches into the water system in some significant dosage seems super low (how much of Nevada's water comes from deep reservoirs versus surface supplies and how integrated are these systems?). Also, how does that stack up against the death toll due to fossil fuels ("well we want to switch to renewables eventually" <- meanwhile people are still dying at a rate of tens or hundreds of thousands per year).

pydry 5y ago
>Also, how does that stack up against the death toll due to fossil fuels ("well we want to switch to renewables eventually" Took about ~4 years to build hornsea. Will end up being about ~20 to build hinkley point. For 2-3x the cost you get 80% load capacity factor rather than 60%. If you're in a hurry... that huge pile of money used to ~~keep nuclear skills and industry accessible to countries with nuclear arsenals~~ save the planet might be put to better use elsewhere.
- liketochill 5y ago
  Where is the 80% number from? With nuclear you also get to choose when the power output is 100% and when you want to take an outage for maintenance.