[pjerem]

> Still no solution for nuclear waste

That’s false. In France we have a project to bury them 500m underground in stable geological formations. And even if this site failed to retain the radioactive (which studies says it will not) that would be a minor issue against climate change.

As for security issues since nuclear power exists (~70 years) we can count deadly accidents in some dozens of victims while the pollution due to burning fuels kills several thousands of people every year.

At this point it’s so ridiculous that you have way more chance to die in a plane crash of anything nuclear.

Also contrary to a belief, a plane crashing in a nuclear powerplant, while creating a certain horrible mess would not be really different than crashing it in any petrochemical plant. For comparison that would be way less dramatic than the AZF of Beyrouth explosions.

[croes]

>That’s false. In France we have a project to bury them

It's not a solution if it's still a project otherwise nuclear fusion and carbon dioxide capturing would be solutions too.

[Aerroon]

Here's a practical solution: put it in the second parking lot. The nuclear waste that a nuclear plant generates over its lifetime likely won't even fill up that same plant's parking lot. And some of that waste could also be reused at a later time.

Something else to consider is that the stuff with the highest radioactivity is usually the shortest. At this stage having a robust forever-lasting solution for nuclear waste is not a larger priority.

There are places in the world where you can just find uranium rocks lying on the ground.

[pyrale]

> It's not a solution if it's still a project

Fine, take the Finnish repository as an example then.