Yeah, nothing back there except tons of highly radioactive waste that nobody knows what to do with for the next million years, nothing back there but the risk of contaminating a whole region with radioactive shit like it happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima, nothing back there except for overly expensive energy that's only cheap because governments subsidized the shit out of it because they thought it was the new big thing you need to have, and now they still do just because. Don't get me worng, it's probably still a tiny bit better than burning fossils. But it's still bullshit.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sigh, we know EXACTLY what to do with it.

Dig a deep hole into the bedrock, put the waste in dry casks, put the casks in the hole, backfill with clay.

This has been known for decades!

I live in a suburb north of Stockholm in Sweden, here in Scandinavia we have a very stable bedrock, I would absolutely welcome a disposal site for nuclear waste in my suburb, and I am talking about a site that would accept waste from all over the world (for a fee obviously).

It would be simple, create jobs, and allow us to keep using nuclear power to allow for quicker removal of fossil power plants.

As for Chernobyl, TMI and Fukashima, Chernobyl was a bad design which was run by people who lacked access to information about past nuclear accidents, leading to bad management, TMI had a fail deadly indicator system, where a broken light bulb caused incorrect information to be acted on, and Fukashima was built in a bad location.

I recommend you to watch this 2006 BBC Horizon documentary, it is called Nuclear Nightmares and talks about our fear of radiation, and weather or not it is warranted:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7pqwo8

A large coal power plant needs at least 10000 tons of coal every day according to Wikipedia.

A nuclear plant needs about 25 tons per year.

That is a huge, massive difference in logistics, pollution and use of resources, that is not even getting into the coal ash that is produced by cosl plants, according to the EPA, nearly 130 million tons of coal ash was generated in the US by coal power plants. None was generated by nuclear power plants.

Please watch the documentary, it is a few years old, but the premise still holds.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Also just for those still not convinced, that coal ash is radioactive as well, and contains other toxins, and has polluted far more land than nuclear.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 months ago

Oh absolutely!

Another point is that there are places outside Chernobyl and Fukashima that have higher background radiation that either exclusion zone, and that is places where people live normally, I seem to recall that being mentioned in the documentary I linked.