[atoav]

The idea how incredibly long nuclear waste needs to be at least marked (better: properly dealt with) always baffled me. You use that stuff now and it will be dangerous waste for the next 10 millenia. Yet you wil hardly find any private nuclear corporation that even has a plan for the next century.

I suspect most nuclear powers depend on the private sector for maintaining their nuclear arsenal, and having them really factor these future risks, storage costs and insurances in would make nuclear energy uncompetitive.

Gladly in most nations the public readily jumps in and pays the bill (and will have to do so for centuries). Imagine the outrage if any renewable energy would demand such things from the public.

I understand the fascination with nuclear energy, look at the Voyager, which powered by a nuclear battery flew for two decades through the void. But the points I raised above are only speaking of nuclear energy as it is now used – I can imagine future cleaner reactors with less waste. But right now nobody has any incentive to really put money into it.

[orbifold]

Compare that to carbon dioxide, which also lasts in the atmosphere a long time (roughly 1-2 orders of magnitude less than nuclear waste, which on the other hand has very localised effects) and is released by thousands of coal power plants unchecked and with minimal regulation all over the world. Not to mention the deadly air pollution, which causes chronic illnesses and death in the thousands.

[atoav]

CO2 like nuclear waste is effectively cost that you let future generations pay. Nuclear energy as we have it now is not a solution.

The same money that would go into taking over costs for private nuclear companies could easily flow into new technologies and energetic cycles, some of which the US is actively working against on political and economic levels.

Climate change will have an incredible impact on migration, so the best way to reduce CO2 is to make it in a way that gives Africa and its people a future. You could e.g. Force CO2 neutrality for carbon plants by having them plant trees in Africa. Which not only would reduce their CO2 impact and create jobs where they are needed to stop future drama, but increase soil stability, help with the increasing temperatures and potentially even provide food.

Btw. Coal plants are heavily regulated over hear in Europe — the filters they have to have have the size of a little house.

The question is: is the future more important than beeing/staying the geopolitical and economical leader? It is only about priorities and not about the unavailability of solutions. Are tou willing to give up long term competitveness for short term gain?

Petrol could be replaced by closed Ethyl cycles produced by solar panels in the sahara (which would again create jobs there) and we wouldn’t have to use electric cars whose battery production costs more CO2 than the car would save. The infrastructure to use Ethyl is basically there (If I am not wrong the Chinese add over 10% of Ethyl to their petrol already).

I think the solution are closed cycles. If water wouldn’t have a cycle on it’s own or without us creating it we would all have died of thirst.