3 ms·
> The much bigger problem with nuclear energy is that humanity has not yet figured out how to handle the waste on the short term. I agree with you. The ~250,00
by chrisfosterelli 4y ago
> The much bigger problem with nuclear energy is that humanity has not yet figured out how to handle the waste on the short term.
I agree with you. The ~250,000 tons of nuclear waste we have is a problem. However, we're even less well equipped to handle the ~50,000,000,000 tons of greenhouse gas waste we are generating per year today.
- fgeiger 4y agoThe thing about greenhouse gases is: if we stop emitting them today they will still cause problems for decades. With nuclear waste the time scale is vastly different. For that we need to be able to plan for milennia.
- chrisfosterelli 4y agoThat's my point: avoiding nuclear is failing to solve a problem that will certainly have catastrophic effects within decades to avoid a problem that may effect us hundreds of years from now. It's a bad trade. It's a bad trade even assuming that we don't use those hundreds of years to innovate on the problem, but we should and are. For example, see the sibling thread, or look at TerraPower's reactor that runs off of spent nuclear fuel: https://www.terrapower.com/a-solution-to-the-nuclear-waste-problem/ https://www.terrapower.com/a-solution-to-the-nuclear-waste-p...
- yellowapple 4y ago> For that we need to be able to plan for milennia. 1. Dig a very deep hole 2. Put the bad stuff in the hole 3. Undig the hole Well hot damn I guess I've done thousands of years' worth of planning.