[jimmaswell]

The "nuclear waste is.. nuclear waste" bit is a thoughtless, easy jab that plays on the unfounded fear of nuclear energy. Safely stored nuclear waste isn't a danger to anybody.

I also don't like how the rest of the video continues to try to put nuclear in a bad light, going as far as implying it's not "clean energy".

[marshray]

> Safely stored nuclear waste isn't a danger to anybody.

You can not claim that without a credible plan to store it until it's no longer hot, however long that takes.

[drjesusphd]

About 12 years for the isotopes produced by neutron activation in fusion reactors.

[ufmace]

Is it more dangerous than Global Warming, though? If Global Warming is really coming, and really as dangerous as people say, then who gives a damn about some nuclear waste? Build the plants now, we'll have plenty of time to figure out what to do with any waste when we aren't underwater.

[DanBC]

Isn't that what we said about CO2?

[jimmaswell]

WIPP is designed to last over 10000 years.

[CamperBob2]

Put it in Antarctica.

[wallace_f]

>implying it's not "clean energy".

Well, it's not. Whether it's "cleaner" than alternative fossil fuels is an interesting debate, however.

[jimmaswell]

Its byproducts, spent material, can be safely stored indefinitely in appropriate facilities. Running nuclear plants doesn't pollute the environment. How is it not clean?

[varjag]

Much of the actual, exiting waste however is not stored safely. And the two INES scale 1 incidents we had did pollute the environment pretty badly. So yes it is pretty dirty so far.

You don't get very far in life relying on best-case scenario planning.

[wallace_f]

Yea, and even best case scenario is an indefinite nuclear waste facility somewhere inside Yucca mountain for the world to worry about for thousands of years to come.

It's interesting that it may be cleaner than traditional fossil fuels, but suggesting nuclear waste does not pose any environmental risk because it can be safely stored is exactly as you say: it's like saying anything does not pose risk because it can be safely averted. I could use the same logic to argue cars do not pose any safety risk because we can safely avert accidents. It's just wishful thinking to say we are capable to not make mistakes, and it's not logical to say there is no risk when there is.