3 ms·

Also don't forget to calculate the cost for maintenance, dismantling and safe storage of nuclear waste for probably hundreds/thousands of years. We currently d

Also don't forget to calculate the cost for maintenance, dismantling and safe storage of nuclear waste for probably hundreds/thousands of years. We currently do not have _any_ viable solution other than "put it somewhere in a mountain" to get rid of nuclear waste. Nobody would propose a technology or product where this is the only solution to take care of the waste, nevertheless this seems to be fine for nuclear power. What we really need to do is invest heavily in research and developement of storage systems of all kinds, building a more decentralized power grid (solar on every roof where possible e.g.) and getting rid of fossil fuels along the way. Everythings needs to run parallel, not one after another.

sharikous 5y ago
> We currently do not have _any_ viable solution other than "put it somewhere in a mountain" to get rid of nuclear waste What's the problem with that? Radiation goes away, eventually. The main thing that we should do is to reduce the amount of "nuclear waste". Spent rods are one thing, gloves that touched a facility with some amount of radioactive materials are another
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >What's the problem with that? Radiation goes away, eventually. A property that makes it a lot less toxic than all sorts of nasty industrial byproducts that humanity generates in similar quantity. Imagine you poised a watershed with radiator. 100yr later it's probably mostly fine depending on how much you poisoned it in the first place. Now try that with a heavy metal laced chemical...
- martin_a 5y ago
  > What's the problem with that? Radiation goes away, eventually. Well, seems like a proper problem to me. What if something happens to those "safe" underground storages? What if radioactive material leaks into the groundwater reservoirs? There might be problems we can fix and control for say 50 years or so, like a generation long. But what after that? Maybe somebody has found a solution, maybe not. So bury it for another generation and hope the generation after that finds a solution? I don't like that as a "plan".
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    Mass extinction of the human race due to global climate change is a much bigger problem, much more probable, and much less desirable.

sharikous 5y ago

> We currently do not have _any_ viable solution other than "put it somewhere in a mountain" to get rid of nuclear waste What's the problem with that? Radiation goes away, eventually. The main thing that we should do is to reduce the amount of "nuclear waste". Spent rods are one thing, gloves that touched a facility with some amount of radioactive materials are another

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>What's the problem with that? Radiation goes away, eventually. A property that makes it a lot less toxic than all sorts of nasty industrial byproducts that humanity generates in similar quantity. Imagine you poised a watershed with radiator. 100yr later it's probably mostly fine depending on how much you poisoned it in the first place. Now try that with a heavy metal laced chemical...
martin_a 5y ago
> What's the problem with that? Radiation goes away, eventually. Well, seems like a proper problem to me. What if something happens to those "safe" underground storages? What if radioactive material leaks into the groundwater reservoirs? There might be problems we can fix and control for say 50 years or so, like a generation long. But what after that? Maybe somebody has found a solution, maybe not. So bury it for another generation and hope the generation after that finds a solution? I don't like that as a "plan".
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Mass extinction of the human race due to global climate change is a much bigger problem, much more probable, and much less desirable.