3 ms·
Posts like this make me just despair... we couldn't even scale up this to the world wide needs, but if we could the waste would be huge. Only thing that could
by throw827474737 4y ago
Posts like this make me just despair... we couldn't even scale up this to the world wide needs, but if we could the waste would be huge.
Only thing that could get us out there and would only make sense is going renewables everywhere in Manhatten-like projects, but that won't happen because people argueing like this got us into this situation where there is allegedly only a binary choice between failed and failed..
- towaway15463 4y ago> the waste would be huge Isn’t the opposite true? Nuclear fuel has the highest energy density of any fuel source by a gigantic margin. The entire US stockpile of waste since the 50s is only 83,000 metric tonnes and could fit on a single football field stacked less than 10 yards deep. If we could all stop clutching our pearls about scary radiation and just agree to store the spent fuel deep underground there’d be absolutely no danger from it. Add to that the fact you can recycle the fuel and get even more energy out of it.
- ncmncm 4y agoEnergy density has proven so totally meaningless as a proxy for cost that even mentioning it as a plus is disingenuous at best.
- towaway15463 4y agoI’m talking about waste, not cost.
- zackees 4y agoIt's easier than this, the waste can be burned in the new generators. So building more nuclear would actually fix the nuclear waste problem.