4 ms·

I think we're talking about different periods of time when referring to the "short term". My short term is probably your medium term. While there are some tech

by hetman 13y ago

I think we're talking about different periods of time when referring to the "short term". My short term is probably your medium term. While there are some technologies to dispose of the waste, such as breeder reactors, even burying the highly stabilised waste in a small area surely seems favourable to dumping it over large geographic areas as traditional fossil fuels do. It's not like there's a dearth of radioactives in the Earth's crust already.

welterde 13y ago
The radioactive elements in fossil fuels is less of a problem than you think, because a) coal plants, etc. have to filter these out (at least in germany they do) b) they have short half-times. And storing the radioactive waste for a few thousand years is by no means an easy/cheap task.. just look at the two experimental radioactive waste sites in germany.. both turned out to be a huge disaster in less than 100 years. Also I am not convinced that breeder reactors help you that much to get rid of thousands of tons of radioactive reactor assembly.