Its cost prohibitive to build new Third Generation reactors that are fault tolerant, and moreso to assure that all the Second Generation reactors are fully fault tolerant given how adjacent they are to flood plains and fault lines in the US
Where the fuck are we gonna put the waste at? Yucca Mountain is off the table for good, WIPP is nearing capacity for a pilot plant, and we have nothing like Onkalo planned out despite the funding being there many times over

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago

What's wrong with nuclear waste? Is it radioactive or something? Like the original uranium we got out of the ground?

[–] erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

All the waste a plant ever produces in its lifetime can be contained with ease on site. Waste certainly isn't the main issue, though it's portrayed to be. Cost of deployment and staffing are more prohibitive issues, and both are surmountable. I don't think it's a bandaid for all power issues, but it's a powerful tool that should be used more often, not phased out.

[–] storcholus@feddit.org 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

On site? For 100000 years?

[–] erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Or much much longer. It's not going anywhere. It can't escape its cask, and outside human intervention the casks won't be breached. It's just locked-up metal that gives off some radiation, fully contained within the cask. It isn't oozing green goo.

[–] whodoctor11@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

outside human intervention the casks won’t be breached

Unless due to tectonic activity...

[–] erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 months ago

They're seismically isolated

[–] LordKitsuna@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Also we do have the ability to re-utilize waste in different types of reactors until it is essentially entirely spent. There is a complete cycle available. Nobody talks about it though because you know, not as cost-effective

[–] mojo_raisin@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

All the waste a plant ever produces in its lifetime can be contained with ease on site.

Won't that create a bunch of targets all over the country? Then terrorists or enemy states can use simple small bombs to make whole areas uninhabitable for the next millennium.

[–] erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The casks waste is stored in would take bunker buster yields to breach.

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Strong enough to be hit by a train full speed too IIRC, plus if we actually built Yucca Mtn anyone getting within 500 miles of Fallon is getting vaporized over the sand long before they can try busting any bunkers

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Where the fuck we gonna put all the waste product?

In the air, so everyone everywhere is interacting with it on a daily basis.

Oh wait, that's what we do with waste from all the other power plants.

A waste product that can put on a specific spot is easier to deal with than a waste product that can't.

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago

well, you have a point there