3 ms·
That vision needs waste disposal or processing, which Jimmy Carter halted when he took office. It matters little that Ronald Reagan removed the prohibition, as
by landemva 4y ago
That vision needs waste disposal or processing, which Jimmy Carter halted when he took office. It matters little that Ronald Reagan removed the prohibition, as investors will not put capital toward that again because the investment can be wiped out a few years later based on whims of politics. Without waste processing, storage of waste onsite forever creates an investment problem for new construction in USA.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-waste-idUSKBN27W30U https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-waste-id...
'Former President Jimmy Carter halted reprocessing in 1977, citing proliferation concerns.'
- pvarangot 4y agoThe proliferation concerns probably got worse. I wouldn't invest in this in the US unless there was like a constitutional amendment saying we can reprocess.
- volkl48 4y agoWe're actively building new nuclear weapons anyway, I don't see how reprocessing changes any of that calculation?
- kova12 4y agoThis is such a misguided argument. Amount of nuclear waste is so negligible compared to common waste, it doesn't deserve to even be argued about. Not only that, but today's nuclear waste in couple of decades could become a treasure for next generations. Discussion should be: we either develop new energy sources or we don't. Either works for me, but if you don't want to go on with progress, then shut up about climate change and stop calling yourself progressive
- pfdietz 4y agoThe investors didn't put money toward it because it had no economic foundation. Uranium is too cheap, enrichment became cheaper, and separated plutonium has negative value. The French have admitted their reprocessing was net more expensive than not doing it.