|
|
|
|
|
|
by s21n
2868 days ago
|
|
|
The problem with nuclear waste is exaggerated. It can be safely stored in warehouses, there's no need to bury it. The fuel rods are solid, so there's no risk of leakage. Dry cask storage containers are made of steel and concrete, they stop all the radiation and can withstand plane crashes and earthquakes. You can't steal the fuel, it's too heavy to load it on a truck, and even if you found a suitable vehicle, you need to convoy it when they're shooting at you… Our current solutions to short-term storage are perfectly adequate long-term solutions. And we don't even need to store it that long, because soon we'll need it to produce fuel for next generation reactors. The real problem with nuclear waste management are impossible and unnecessary safety requirements. The cost of waste management is already included in the cost of nuclear energy. The cost of energy storage is not included in the cost of renewables, thus they may appear as cheaper, and indeed they are – for now – because we currently don't need energy storage. But as the renewables penetration rises, the cost of energy storage will skyrocket: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-re... |
|
|