6 ms·

It's absolutely not. Waste is a solved problem, you bury it VERY deep using the same borehole technology currently used for fracking. And I think you grossly ov

It's absolutely not. Waste is a solved problem, you bury it VERY deep using the same borehole technology currently used for fracking. And I think you grossly overestimate the amount of waste a nuclear plant generates. Here's a source (also check the sourced on the video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU3kLBo_ruo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU3kLBo_ruo The problem is more likely PERCEPTION of nuclear waste.

guelo 3y ago
"PERCEPTION" == politics, which is very much not a solved problem. It's the same reason we can't tax carbon emissions to properly account for its externalities.
greenthrow 3y ago
That is not solving the problem. That is hiding it. Our civilization needs to move beyond the caveman level thinking that burying somethibg in the ground is solving it. Solar panels are highly recyclable. We are figuring out how to recycle the composite materials used for windmill blades. We need to move to a circular economy.
- lmm 3y ago
  > That is not solving the problem. That is hiding it. Our civilization needs to move beyond the caveman level thinking that burying somethibg in the ground is solving it. It came out of the ground, if we put it back there then how have we made things worse than they were? There are natural nuclear reactors in places untouched by humans. > Solar panels are highly recyclable. Really? At what energy cost? > We are figuring out how to recycle the composite materials used for windmill blades. Which is a fancy way of saying we can't and don't currently recycle them. There are reasonably advanced plans for reprocessing nuclear waste too. > We need to move to a circular economy. Fundamentally impossible. We need to keep pollution at manageable levels and expand into the universe. The environmental impact of nuclear waste is tiny in comparison to virtually everything else we do in everyday life; it should be a long long way down the list of concerns.
  - Hackwar 3y ago
    When it was in the ground, it was greatly diluted and bound in rocks. Now it has been highly concentrated and ground up several times. Lead also came from the ground, doesn't mean that it is harmless to live near a dumpsite for lead. Your argument is bullshit.
  - Schroedingersat 3y ago
    > It came out of the ground, if we put it back there then how have we made things worse than they were? There are natural nuclear reactors in places untouched by humans. This is facile. Plutonium 240 isn't uranium 238. Nor is Cs, Tc, Pu241 etc. You can just say you're not remotely interested in truth or reality. It's simpler for everyone.

guelo 3y ago

"PERCEPTION" == politics, which is very much not a solved problem. It's the same reason we can't tax carbon emissions to properly account for its externalities.

greenthrow 3y ago

That is not solving the problem. That is hiding it. Our civilization needs to move beyond the caveman level thinking that burying somethibg in the ground is solving it. Solar panels are highly recyclable. We are figuring out how to recycle the composite materials used for windmill blades. We need to move to a circular economy.

lmm 3y ago
> That is not solving the problem. That is hiding it. Our civilization needs to move beyond the caveman level thinking that burying somethibg in the ground is solving it. It came out of the ground, if we put it back there then how have we made things worse than they were? There are natural nuclear reactors in places untouched by humans. > Solar panels are highly recyclable. Really? At what energy cost? > We are figuring out how to recycle the composite materials used for windmill blades. Which is a fancy way of saying we can't and don't currently recycle them. There are reasonably advanced plans for reprocessing nuclear waste too. > We need to move to a circular economy. Fundamentally impossible. We need to keep pollution at manageable levels and expand into the universe. The environmental impact of nuclear waste is tiny in comparison to virtually everything else we do in everyday life; it should be a long long way down the list of concerns.
- Hackwar 3y ago
  When it was in the ground, it was greatly diluted and bound in rocks. Now it has been highly concentrated and ground up several times. Lead also came from the ground, doesn't mean that it is harmless to live near a dumpsite for lead. Your argument is bullshit.
- Schroedingersat 3y ago
  > It came out of the ground, if we put it back there then how have we made things worse than they were? There are natural nuclear reactors in places untouched by humans. This is facile. Plutonium 240 isn't uranium 238. Nor is Cs, Tc, Pu241 etc. You can just say you're not remotely interested in truth or reality. It's simpler for everyone.