[fc417fc802]

I think it is you who hasn't bothered to do basic research before forming an opinion. I suggest at least skimming the wikipedia page on radioactive waste. [0] There's also a page documenting the various national management plans. [1]

> I've never understood how people think "less" solves the issue, it's not negligible ...

It just needs to be little enough that the cost of constructing long term storage space isn't cost prohibitive.

The amount produced is something like 25 to 30 tons per GW per year before reprocessing; after reprocessing it's something like ~5% of that. Unfortunately I couldn't readily find numbers for the dilution rate when vitrifying the waste for geological disposal. Regardless, that amount is almost nothing when considered in terms of volume. A full size shipping container is somewhere between 75 and 108 cubic meters depending on which standard you prefer. To give a rough idea that equates to ~180 (US) tons of borosilicate glass (one of the materials commonly used to vitrify high level waste) on the low end (assuming I got the math right).

There are also alternative disposal methods to consider such as breeder reactors (rather expensive at present) or horizontal drillholes.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_m...

[awesome_dude]

You're repeating the problem - You're saying that there is less waste to deal with which magically means it's safe.

You do understand that don't you?

[fc417fc802]

You appear to be reiterating an irrational position. I provided links to overviews of the topic; I strongly suggest at least skimming them. The quantity of unavoidable high level waste would appear to be sufficiently small that geological disposal is a cost effective solution.

The high level waste in question is not magically safe. Rather the various reprocessing and disposal methods have been extensively engineered and deliberated. At this point there is no cause to believe deep geological disposal in crystalline bedrock to be unsafe.

[awesome_dude]

I said from the start that the argument you presented was fallacious, and all you did was present it, now, because you have no other argument, you're working on aggressive attacks.

You're on your own now. Bye.

[fc417fc802]

Do please explain how it's fallacious? I've made the claims that one, there is a sufficiently low volume of waste produced per unit of generation that geologic disposal is affordable and scalable and that two, said geological disposal is in fact safe. Where's the fallacy?

It appears to me that you are attached to a position that you aren't capable of defending.

[cyberax]

Less waste to deal with makes it safer, simply because you need to control and manage less material.

We also know how to get rid of it entirely, leaving only material that will decay to safe levels within hundreds of years. It's prohibitively expensive right now, but may be feasible in the future once technology matures.