Sellafield’s toxicity comes from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel into plutonium for nuclear weapons. Using that as evidence that commercial nuclear energy waste is expensive or complex to handle seems disingenuous.
Also the costs given are total over the span of 100 years. That’s quite a pittance from the perspective of annual government cash flow.
You don’t need to sequester things long term for nuclear. First, waste has lots of uses and isn’t just discarded (eg medical applications). Secondly, we will build breeder reactors which can reuse spent fuel decreasing radioactivity further. Also, the most radioactive waste decays very quickly and the remainder isn’t as toxic. Most of the complexity of water management is that people hear “radioactive waste” and instantly enter NIMBY fear mode instead of figuring out how to manage the risks.
But sure, if we strangle nuclear then we’ll never improve our ability to solve and mitigate problems associated with energy production.
You clearly did not read the second sentence in my tiny comment. Hand wavy nuclear apologia is what's actually incredibly disingenuous.
You don't just need to keep tabs on it for 100 years. Much longer & ideally in a coordinated fashion.
If there's such demand for nuclear waste, why aren't companies making bank off of it? The demand isn't as high as you think.
We'll build magical breeder reactors that aren't actually commercially viable & use reprocessing facilities with the same process drawbacks that created some of these messes in the first place? Sounds like a bad idea.
Poo pooing the fears and dangers of nuclear is how we got into this mess where nuclear has a bad rap, deservedly so, from very poor management of very powerful substances.
The realities are that nuclear is incredibly complex & costly to implement & manage in a way where its full potential is realized. That's not a reason we shouldn't do it, but let's stop pretending commercial nuclear is viable.
vlovich123|2 years ago
Also the costs given are total over the span of 100 years. That’s quite a pittance from the perspective of annual government cash flow.
You don’t need to sequester things long term for nuclear. First, waste has lots of uses and isn’t just discarded (eg medical applications). Secondly, we will build breeder reactors which can reuse spent fuel decreasing radioactivity further. Also, the most radioactive waste decays very quickly and the remainder isn’t as toxic. Most of the complexity of water management is that people hear “radioactive waste” and instantly enter NIMBY fear mode instead of figuring out how to manage the risks.
But sure, if we strangle nuclear then we’ll never improve our ability to solve and mitigate problems associated with energy production.
Klinky|2 years ago
You don't just need to keep tabs on it for 100 years. Much longer & ideally in a coordinated fashion.
If there's such demand for nuclear waste, why aren't companies making bank off of it? The demand isn't as high as you think.
We'll build magical breeder reactors that aren't actually commercially viable & use reprocessing facilities with the same process drawbacks that created some of these messes in the first place? Sounds like a bad idea.
Poo pooing the fears and dangers of nuclear is how we got into this mess where nuclear has a bad rap, deservedly so, from very poor management of very powerful substances.
The realities are that nuclear is incredibly complex & costly to implement & manage in a way where its full potential is realized. That's not a reason we shouldn't do it, but let's stop pretending commercial nuclear is viable.