3 ms·
Just to call it explicitly, because I think this is one of the big points of misunderstanding between pro- and anti-nuclear people (take that as a very rough ca
by roughly 1y ago
Just to call it explicitly, because I think this is one of the big points of misunderstanding between pro- and anti-nuclear people (take that as a very rough categorization and not an accusation) -
There is a difference between “something can be done correctly” and “something is likely to be done correctly.” Nuclear advocates I’ve read tend to argue the former - it’s possible to have safe reactors, it’s possible to keep the waste sequestered safely, there’s not a technical reason why nuclear is inherently unsafe. Skeptics tend to be making a different argument - not that it’s not possible to do things safely and correctly, but that in our current late-capitalist milieu, it’s almost impossible that we _will_. It’s not an argument about capability, it’s an argument about will and what happens in bureaucracies, both public and private.
- Terr_ 1y agoYeah, if waste management was as viable as proponents claim, places like Hanford [0] would already be an inactive site with a memorial park on top. Whether it's technology, economics, or politics, clearly the state of the art is deficient because we currently have persistent deficiencies. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
- Manuel_D 1y agoIt's politics. The US already built a waste site in Yucca Mountain, but never bothered to actually use it for political reasons. Digging a shaft half a kilometer into bedrock and sealing it is not state of the art.