[dpark]

We have no practical way to clean CO2 from the atmosphere and we don't need catastrophe for it to be a problem. We're poisoning the planet with real carbon dioxide while we fret about the hypothetical risks of hypothetical nuclear waste.

[nixos]

>hypothetical nuclear waste.

Chernobyl isn't hypothetical. And neither is Fukushima. And those weren't as bad as they could have been.

And we still don't know what to do with all the waste we have.

[closeparen]

We could replace coal with nuclear yesterday if the anti-nuclear activists would stand down. Instead, they have fought to continue a status quo whose death toll we start couting at 25,000 people per year lost to black lung [0]. No serial killer or terrorist could dream of effecting mass casualites as efficiently as the proponents of this viewpoint do when they take action that results in the continued and expanding operation of coal power generation, despite an alternative which is actually viable in every respect but their opposition.

Yes, nuclear power has problems. But even if it killed 24,000 people per year, blocking the replacement of coal by nuclear would still be a willful choice to cause the deaths of 1,000 people (it's getting really hard not to say murder).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalworker's_pneumoconiosis

[adrianN]

Of course we know what to do with the "waste": Keep it close, it's precious fuel for breeder reactors.

[ljf]

The waste isn't just the spent fuel though - see my other comments...

[ageofwant]

The total volume of which would fit in an apartment block. That block could be dropped into the marina trench if you really are that paranoid, total cost a few million dollars.

There is no conceivable way of removing even daily worldwide human carbon waste from the atmosphere for that kind of money.

[ljf]

72000 metric tons - would that be safe to place together in a single container? http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/On-Si...

Sure the physical size of a spent fuel might be 'small' but this is not the only issue.

And the low level waste - of which there is approx 360000 tons? Would the Mariana Trench would be a good/safe place to place this? Based on what reckoning?

[ageofwant]

No you can dump low level waste under 1m of topsoil, and build a hospital or school or kindergarten on top of it. That's why its called low-level waste.

>> And the low level waste - of which there is approx 360000 tons? Would the Mariana Trench would be a good/safe place to place this? Based on what reckoning?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_...