[sonnyblarney]

"Natural gas has no place in this long-term."

Carbon sequestration is possibly a viable solution. There seem to be solutions in trial (there are numerous questions around it), and even with added costs of capture, it's considerably cheaper and more reliable than other form of energy - moreover, we have it in abundance.

Natural Gas is as viable for the horizon of our future we're able to predict.

In 100 years, every dimension of our tech will have changed so much it's hard to predict. Maybe we solve the nuclear wast problem. Maybe we get fusion. Maybe we have uber cheap solar. Maybe we have dirty easy sequestration. Maybe we have alternatives.

[ccffph]

We have already solved the nuclear waste problem. The issue is that nobody wants to bury it in their backyard, so to speak. Waste containers are incredibly safe and secure, and modern fuel waste is much safer than gen 1 fuel waste. People like feel-good shiny solar panels and wind turbines over concrete near-zero emission solutions.

[sonnyblarney]

We haven't solved the 'waste problem'.

1) Long term storage has some existential risks. Over very long time horizons, these risks become real.

2) Transportation, processing and storage: all of this operational stuff is totally ripe for accidents.

[wbl]

It doesn't. The impact of radiation is a rise in cancer rates which even if they substantially shorten lifetimes aren't X risk.

[sonnyblarney]

Your answer is basically 'radiation causes rise in cancer which can substantially reduce lifetimes is not a risk'.

I don't see how that's reasonable, I suggest you might have typed something incorrectly.

There are still quite a number of risks inherent in the Nuclear process that require only a few operational failures for disaster.

If very smart countries and operationally efficient countries like Japan screw up the risks, then anyone can. And that there were mitigating circumstances does not change the fact that Japan still had great governance and scientists and persisted with either risky models or a failure to measure the risk.

Basically, we'd need to suck the risk out of every part of the process in order for it to work well.

I think it's possible.

[adrianN]

What's the existential risk? The absolute worst case that I can imagine is that all the waste somehow ends up in the ground water. That would be extremely bad, but localized to the area where the waste is stored.

[sonnyblarney]

Existential is as you mentioned: ground water pollution of the entire NE seaboard. Terrorist dirty bomb in NYC that affects 30 million people as the weather carries particles etc.

[ccffph]

inverse square law and lack of any volume of any highly active source makes dirty bombs a nonissue. they are scarier than they are effective.

Again, waste storage is incredibly secure and safe. It wouldn't leech into the water. Nuclear subs have sank into the ocean, and, surprise, there wasn't a global disaster.