"Nuclear power is a potential safety threat, *if* something goes wrong. Coal-fired power is *guaranteed* destruction, filling the atmosphere with planet-heating carbon when it operates the way it's supposed to". (Bill McKibben)
Same for fossil gas, by the way.
@kravietz Nuclear power is guaranteed destruction as well… Creating nuclear waste lasting for centuries and other than CO2, we don't even have a remote idea on how to get rid of it.
And no, hiding it in the ground is not a great answer as all temporary depots have shown.
I think we have to come up with better solutions there.
@sheogorath This is simply not true. Amount of waste from nuclear fission is so microscopic that it can be bottled in hermetic containers, as in this storage in Switzerland. Then it can be reused in breeder reactor, or vitrified in glass blocks and stored in bunkers. And in 100 years it loses 90% of its activity.
@kravietz Well, then you still have a problem, according to the place you are talking about those containers are only made to be used for 40 years. And there is a lot of work going on, just to take care of those containers. Not to mention that it's also just a temporary place.
https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/wissen/technik/das-vergessene-atomlager/story/24985140
@sheogorath Correct, because used fuel cannot be stored underground while it still emits heat. That's why it's kept in temporary containers for 10 years and then either reprocessed or vitrified and stored underground.
@kravietz Where AFAIK the latter is still not figured out yet. Doesn't sounds great to me, we produce waste we have no place for yet.
And the history of how this waste was handled is also not really promising. From just throwing it into the water to not properly sealed locations and worse, everything around. Is that really what we want to do?