I actually find it pretty hilarious when people are so vehemently against burying nuclear waste - then you mention Oklo to them and they just go all quiet.
Wait, people are against it? Why on earth? Probably the safest place to store that stuff is deep underground, at least anywhere where there’s no seismic fuckery going on
But it has also remained controversial in many countries due to its high cost and long build times, as well as concerns over the safety of nuclear reactors and the unresolved issue of what to do with nuclear waste.
Still, several countries including the US and UK are building new reactors or upgrading existing ones to increase capacity, while others such as India, China and Russia are planning huge expansions.
Debates remain open about the safety of these plants themselves, but a solution also needs to be found for the huge amounts of spent fuel and radioactive waste being accumulated that remains dangerous to the environment and human health for hundreds of thousands of years.
Maybe it’s because of press pieces like this generating controversy over it. Somehow coal and oil doesn’t have to, and hasn’t ever really had to justify the insane environmental impact they have.
Digging a hole for some spicy rods versus heating up the whole atmosphere to the point several countries will be underwater and Africa will be uninhabitable. Such a dilemma.
The problem with nuclear energy is that so many people are incredibly uninformed about how it works and what the risks and downsides are when compared to fossil fuels, because there’s really no contest: nuclear energy is by far the safest and least polluting form of “steady state” energy production (compared to eg. solar or wind which can’t produce 24/7) we have right now. Plants tend to be – to use a technical term – expensive as all fuck to build, mainly because they absolutely have to be done right to be safe. It’s still nuclear power and the failure modes are way more… uh… interesting than when you’re just burning rocks or sludge made from dead ancient trees.
Yeah exactly. Mostly it’s the “we’re creating all this dangerous waste and leaving it for our children to deal with” 🤦♂️ In any case, buried or not, with nuclear waste we at least have good understanding of it, have ways to measure how dangerous the levels are, etc, unlike all the polution from fossil fuels that everyone seems to just be content with.
Mostly it’s the “we’re creating all this dangerous waste and leaving it for our children to deal with” 🤦♂️
the way that this specific externality has been blown up into Why We Can’t Do Nuclear in the popular conscience but the same has not been done for the horrifying impacts of pollution for coal and natural gas is one of those truly anger-inducing things, especially since many of the people who popularized it and continue to promote it should know better.
Right? Like where do people think we dug up the stuff from in the first place?
I think criticisms of nuclear waste disposal are 100% valid. Finland is the only place I’ve heard of doing more than giving theoretical lip service to long term disposal. It’s been 4000 years since we were building pyramids in Egypt, yet people act like safely storing spent nuclear waste for 100k years is something trivial. Aside from the cost of building new nuclear plants the quickly dropping prices of renewables makes the argument for nuclear power even more tenuous. No doubt it (nuclear) is far better for the planet and people than coal or gas powered plants, but that’s a tired, outdated argument.
