[exabrial]

For FUCKS SAKE: Nuclear waste is a non issue.

You dedicate once, EXACTLY ONE, swimming pool to store spent fuel for an entire country.

The lie of nuclear waste has been repeated so many time by uneducated fossil fuel lovers we’ve missed hundreds of opportunities to provide clean sustainable power for generations.

There are some logistic and construction problems that need optimization, but waste is the least of them.

[loopback_device]

Not sure how regarding nuclear fission as reasonably dangerous automatically makes you a "fossil fuel lover", but okay. It's not like there aren't any other options out there. They just haven't received much investment in the past decades (except for a few places, i.e. geothermal in Iceland).

I'd like to be educated about that radioactive waste lie – I've not seen it work (meaning no-maintenance, safe, long-term or permanent storage) yet anywhere. And yet, supposedly a solved problem. Waste processing & storage has a long history of irradiating, or even leaking into the environment – one that immediately comes to mind is Sellafield [1], which is a repeat offender. Gorleben [2], another more recent example of how the "solved problem" turned out to be mainly money in other people's pockets. In the US, they recently had an issue with waste stored on the surface [3]. The list is long, and growing – yet not a single storage facility exists that is deemed permanently safe? I also don't know of any such facility currently under construction.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Incidents [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorleben_salt_dome [3]: https://nypost.com/2021/04/03/leak-of-radioactive-wastewater...

[GekkePrutser]

Finally someone with a realistic view on the waste problem.

To me it just seems we're exchanging the results of not tackling one long-term problem (climate change) with another even longer term problem. Externalizing to the future. We don't seem to have any other ideas.

[ceph_]

You are vastly over simplifying this problem. If it was that simple why did yucca mountain fail? It's not. Realistically every nuclear facility is gonna be a waste storage site for thousands of years. That's not being factored into the cost.

Having one nuclear waste dump site per country means transporting nuclear waste to that site by truck or train. Good luck when there's an accident.

[kennend3]

Good thing the people designing the transport casks never thought of that.. you should join their team.. Oh wait.. they did in 1972, and tested the designs?

How much energy was delivered to the cask when a rocket powered train hit it at 84 mph? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu1YFshFuI4

How much radioactive material was released?

What sort of accident do you propose would deliver more energy vs a train strike at 84mph?

[EricE]

Yucca mountain failed due to politics.

Whats even more nuts is we should be burning what we erroneously call "waste", not burying it. Why is it dangerous? Because it's packed full of energy! Energy that could be put to use, instead of burying in the ground. It's beyond idiotic.