3 ms·
No, you really do not. Long term storage is still up in the air in the US. Yucca mountain was the plan but didn't happen Correct me if I'm with m wrong https
by hvb2 11mo ago
No, you really do not.
Long term storage is still up in the air in the US. Yucca mountain was the plan but didn't happen
Correct me if I'm with m wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain
- unethical_ban 11mo agoThat's a political problem, not a technical one. We also know that we could re-cycle nuclear waste with other nuclear plant designs, but the US chooses not to.
- jandrese 11mo agoRadioactive waste is decidedly nasty stuff, but the total volume of it is tiny. There are plenty of chemicals that are just as nasty that were simply buried in the ground in much larger quantities over the years with nary a peep from the population. Nuclear waste is a political problem not a technological one. The crazy part is that people want to insist that the sites need to be absolutely safe even if they aren't maintained for 1,000 years, but by that point the radioactivity would be no more than the base ore anyway so demanding these extended timelines doesn't make anybody safer. They're just red tape.
- hvb2 11mo agoIt's a political problem, maybe. It's peculiar that it's a political problem in pretty much every country though? I know Finland is well on its way for long term storage but that's the only example I know of. There's also quite a few cases where it is a technical problem. Gorleben in Germany for example.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago> peculiar that it's a political problem in pretty much every country It's a political problem in every country that shares its nuclear heritage from the ashes of WWII.
- nandomrumber 11mo agoWhat trash? Where’s the waste? Point to the nuclear waste. If there’s so much of it somebody must be able to point it out to me.