We know what to do with it, the same thing countries like France do, deep isolation.
The problem with America, is the same problem we have for any federal level infrastructure. The states have too much control and are prone to NIMBY campaigns.
Comment on Anon wants to ride a zeppelin
Dagwood222@lemm.ee 5 months agocen.acs.org/environment/pollution/…/i12
Still haven’t found a good way to get rid of nuclear waste, which remains dangerous for a long time.
TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Dagwood222@lemm.ee 5 months ago
imho “deep isolation” isn’t a solution, it’s kicking the can down the road.
Improving the power grid would increase the available supply without causing problems.
TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 5 months ago
it’s kicking the can down the road.
Why? And what would be the alternative?
Even if we don’t start relying on more nuclear power, nuclear waste is still going to be produced. Even if it’s just maintaining the nuclear power we have right now, or just dealing with an aging nuclear arms cache.
I don’t see how kicking it down the road is really a problem in this scenario, as that’s pretty much all you can do with nuclear waste, wait until it’s not dangerous.
Improving the power grid would increase the available supply without causing problems.
That’s kinda a general statement… Part of improving the power grid could be interpreted as including more nuclear power.
The imperative in this scenario isn’t just making sure we’re not “causing problems”, it’s moving towards a power source that minimizes our dependence on fossil fuels.
It’s “kicking the can down the road” vs ecological collapse.
Dagwood222@lemm.ee 5 months ago
I don’t see how kicking it down the road is really a problem in this scenario, as that’s pretty much all you can do with nuclear waste, wait until it’s not dangerous.
So, by your own words, there’s no safe way to get rid of nuclear waste besides storing it and hoping things will work out.
Also, nuclear plants would take as long to build as other, safer methods.
dev_null@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
Which is much better than not kicking the can down the road, and just spewing emissions into the atmosphere like fossil fuels. Nuclear is not perfect, it’s just better than fossil fuels.
Aux@lemmy.world 5 months ago
The problem with America and some other countries like Russia is what you consider a waste is a weapon grade material to these governments. And you don’t want to bury your weapons too deep.
heckypecky@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
Yes, fission sucks. But still better than fossils.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 5 months ago
Recycle it. And the bits you can’t recycle are so negligibly small you can store it in a single dedicated national dump
echodot@feddit.uk 5 months ago
Dumping it on the ground doesn’t seem like a particularly sophisticated strategy but it’s actually perfectly safe. It’s not going to leak out or anything it’s in massive blocks of concrete.
Worrying about it is pointless.
For we know in 50 years someone will come up with a way to recycle it and it’ll be a complete non-issue anyway. This pretty good research on recycling you can a material already so 50 years is not an unreasonable time frame. The current containing solutions are good for thousands of years.
Aux@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Compared to other options, including renewables, nuclear produces close to no waste at all.
Venator@kbin.social 5 months ago
Coal produces more toxic waste per MWh than nuclear, and it just spews it into the atmosphere, not into nice neatly packaged barrels you can just store in a hole underground...
https://youtu.be/5EsBiC9HjyQ?t=50s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k
Dagwood222@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Where did I say coal was a good idea?
I would vote for improving the power grid. Create tons of jobs and make the system less prone to blackouts. Remember 2003
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003