4 ms·

> I just don't like this, a huge amount of money spent for nothing. This fuel can be managed just fine above ground. Yes maybe ever couple 100 years you might h

> I just don't like this, a huge amount of money spent for nothing. This fuel can be managed just fine above ground. Yes maybe ever couple 100 years you might have to move it, who cares. If your society isn't capable managing nuclear waste then nobody will care anymore anyway. I love this sentiment. “Yeah nuclear mismanagement could be society-ending if done poorly, but avoiding it costs money!”

Nathanba 3y ago
Yes, finally the politicians do something properly and immediately they get criticised for spending money.. on long term, sustainable solutions that will help generations to come.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  I have not criticized them for spending money, but spending money inefficiently and on the wrong things. What would actually help generations to come is innovating in terms of GenIV nuclear reactors that can reduce the total amount of waste. That could potentially reduce the global waste, rather then this solution that only works for Finland and has to be replicated many more times to actually solve the waste solution. Burning up the waste and turning it into 300 year waste is the actual long term sustainable solution.
panick21_ 3y ago
Again, this is just delusional. Nuclear waste can not be society ending. Did you read to much Greenpeace propaganda or maybe was it some cheap action movie? And I'm not against spending money. I'm pro-spending money. I want them to spend money on next generation nuclear technology that actually uses the 'waste' to produce energy and other things, like medical isotopes and nuclear batteries. This waste that would be produced from advanced reactors could be reduced to only need 300 years of storage, and for that you don't need geopolitical storage. So how about instead of spending billions digging a hole, spend billions actually improving the situation.
- jrflowers 3y ago
  > Again, this is just delusional. Nuclear waste can not be society ending. What does this sentence mean? >If your society isn't capable managing nuclear waste then nobody will care anymore anyway.
  - LegionMammal978 3y ago
    By my reading, it's the opposite, that only a society that has already ended (of some other cause) would be incapable of managing nuclear waste; dangerous levels of mismanagement would only occur in a postapocalyptic setting or similar.
    - smaudet 3y ago
      "dangerous levels of mismanagement would only occur in a postapocalyptic setting." I know it's not your argument, but based on what exactly? Accidents (repeatedly) happen. I don't get where this concept comes from that accidents are suddenly "delusional". If you don't believe me go check your home house fire rate. Accidents are frequent, safety controls just help reduce frequency. There is nothing delusional here, other than the idea we can suddenly obviate accidents.
    - flangola7 3y ago
      Which civilization has lasted so long that nuclear waste mismanagement would never have become an issue? Every nation, every civilization, falls in time.
  - paavope 3y ago
    I think the argument was that if the society loses the ability to manage nuclear waste, it would have been due to some societal collapse caused by other reasons.

Nathanba 3y ago

Yes, finally the politicians do something properly and immediately they get criticised for spending money.. on long term, sustainable solutions that will help generations to come.

panick21_ 3y ago
I have not criticized them for spending money, but spending money inefficiently and on the wrong things. What would actually help generations to come is innovating in terms of GenIV nuclear reactors that can reduce the total amount of waste. That could potentially reduce the global waste, rather then this solution that only works for Finland and has to be replicated many more times to actually solve the waste solution. Burning up the waste and turning it into 300 year waste is the actual long term sustainable solution.

panick21_ 3y ago

Again, this is just delusional. Nuclear waste can not be society ending. Did you read to much Greenpeace propaganda or maybe was it some cheap action movie? And I'm not against spending money. I'm pro-spending money. I want them to spend money on next generation nuclear technology that actually uses the 'waste' to produce energy and other things, like medical isotopes and nuclear batteries. This waste that would be produced from advanced reactors could be reduced to only need 300 years of storage, and for that you don't need geopolitical storage. So how about instead of spending billions digging a hole, spend billions actually improving the situation.

jrflowers 3y ago
> Again, this is just delusional. Nuclear waste can not be society ending. What does this sentence mean? >If your society isn't capable managing nuclear waste then nobody will care anymore anyway.
- LegionMammal978 3y ago
  By my reading, it's the opposite, that only a society that has already ended (of some other cause) would be incapable of managing nuclear waste; dangerous levels of mismanagement would only occur in a postapocalyptic setting or similar.
  - smaudet 3y ago
    "dangerous levels of mismanagement would only occur in a postapocalyptic setting." I know it's not your argument, but based on what exactly? Accidents (repeatedly) happen. I don't get where this concept comes from that accidents are suddenly "delusional". If you don't believe me go check your home house fire rate. Accidents are frequent, safety controls just help reduce frequency. There is nothing delusional here, other than the idea we can suddenly obviate accidents.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    Which civilization has lasted so long that nuclear waste mismanagement would never have become an issue? Every nation, every civilization, falls in time.
- paavope 3y ago
  I think the argument was that if the society loses the ability to manage nuclear waste, it would have been due to some societal collapse caused by other reasons.