3 ms·
Well that's probably because the requisite crystal ball we need to see into the future hasn't been invented yet either. The whole point of burying it is because
by glitchcrab 3y ago
Well that's probably because the requisite crystal ball we need to see into the future hasn't been invented yet either. The whole point of burying it is because we _can't_ know how the future will pan out.
Your plan is just to keep stockpiling the waste in temporary storage for N years with the hope (faith?) that a technology will appear which can make use of it? I'd rather take the sensible option which has been developed with knowledge that we have now, rather than sitting on it for an indeterminate amount of years for some magical fix to come along.
- tsimionescu 3y agoNote that we already know how to use most radioactive waste, we choose not to deploy those technologies for various reasons (both good and bad). The technology is called breeder reactors.
- nonethewiser 3y ago> Well that's probably because the requisite crystal ball we need to see into the future hasn't been invented yet either. I think your reasoning is pretty sound for the existing waste (and maybe that's all you're talking about). But for new waste it's a different game. We could simply not generate it. I'm not even asserting that we shouldn't use nuclear power, just that this argument should not be over-extended. Another thing to consider with the "well it might be useful later so lets not dump it" argument is that we probably don't need the waste we already created. We can just make more.