Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Beyond-Time t1_isokwf0 wrote

Nuclear waste storage is a non-issue. I am impressed how well the oil and natural gas companies have made people hate nuclear when it is quite literally the best base-load, 0 carbon emission energy we can get.

5

Albert14Pounds t1_isot85s wrote

Seriously, had anyone heard of the ash pits from coal? Way more concerned about that.

2

ThisistheInfiniteIs t1_ispbu7p wrote

>Nuclear waste storage is a non-issue.

This is incredibly ignorant and just straight up wrong.

2

Beyond-Time t1_ispcbhe wrote

It is a non-issue. The vaults currently in service have had little to no issue containing the waste, simple as. This is indisputable, no matter how much you drink the BP/Shale kool-aid. Now, when you compare the relative effects of nuclear waste storage and ash pits and CO2 release from fossil fuels, you'd probably not comment on the topic again. Nuclear is the way forward.

1

ThisistheInfiniteIs t1_ispf656 wrote

>It is a non-issue. The vaults currently in service have had little to no issue containing the waste, simple as.

This is absolutely false, a Holtec cask is only good for about 100 years, which, in the context of super dangerous radioactive waste that will need to be managed and stored for tens of thousands of years is not even close to being a "non-issue".

Do we just keep making bigger and bigger casks like some sort of radioactive russian matyoshka doll to put the failing, now radioactive casks into?

You obviously either have no idea what you are talking about, or you are just straight up lying.

There is no viable plan to deal with this super dangerous waste.

1

Crudtrap t1_isqh8ay wrote

Short answer is no. No we don’t. You can simply submerge the cask in water and put the fuel in a new one.

1

ThisistheInfiniteIs t1_ispgt9t wrote

Not to mention all of the many contaminated sites scattered all over the globe related to the mining, refining, waste storage and fuel fabricating. Far too numerous to list.

1