|
|
|
|
|
|
by palata
1044 days ago
|
|
|
The totality of the nuclear waste produced by France in history can fit in a swimming pool, and most of the space is for the containers. > It has to geologically stable for a long time. Yep, we know places where natural nuclear waste have been stable for extremely long. Stability is not an issue. > People 50,000 years from now need to understand your intentions Sure, maybe some people may suffer from that in 50,000 years (if somehow they go dig there and lost trace of it, I suppose?). But you have to put it in perspective. Even if that killed millions of people (and you would have to look very far to invent a scenario that would be that bad with buried nuclear waste, but let's be very conservative here), that is still much, much better than killing billions in the next few decades with the alternatives. Nuclear energy is not easy, it has to be taken seriously. But you have to realize that we are not talking about saving a few lives here. We are talking about the survival of most living species in a way that is not too bad for humans. |
|
|
and, alarmingly
> we know places where natural nuclear waste have been stable for extremely long. Stability is not an issue.
Just where can you store several swimming pool's worth of extreme poison for 200,000 years? "natural nuclear waste" is an entirely different thing from the several swiming pools worth of material that people seem to want to make every year. There is nowhere that stable.
You have to erect a signpost that can be read and understood, and believed for 200,000 years. That is an order of magnitude longer than we have had writing. How can that be done?