4 ms·
Also there are only two outcomes - humanity survives, and remembers where we've deeply buried spent fuel, or humanity reverts to the stone age, and loses the te
by DrBazza 5y ago
Also there are only two outcomes - humanity survives, and remembers where we've deeply buried spent fuel, or humanity reverts to the stone age, and loses the technology to dig down to the deeply buried fuel (or goes extinct). Either way, it's not really a problem.
- p_l 5y agoI believe we're getting to the point where, if we regress below the level of viable industry capable of running any of our high-tech energy sources (whether it's oil, coal, nuclear or any of the renewables), then we aren't getting it back ever - nor will any future civilisation, because without huge geological shifts all the sources will be beyond reach of primitive tech...
- PaulHoule 5y agoI used to think that 15,000 years from now Scientologists would be fighting with Mormons to break into Yucca Mountain and extract plutonium for nuclear weapons. (The undesirable for weapons Pu240 isotope has a half life of about 6,000 years in contrast to the 24,000 year half life of the desirable Pu239 isotope.) Now I don’t think the Scientologists will be around that long.
- EricE 5y agoWhat we label as spend fuel (or even more maddening, waste!) is still viable fuel we should be burning in newer, better designs. NOT burying it in the desert. The problem with spent fuel isn't the need to bury it. The problem is politics and myopia (on rampant display in this thread!) are winning the day instead of logic and reason.