France only pushed for nuclear, because they need an excuse for the costs of their nukes and nuclear submarines. The disadvantages of high cost and nuclear waste remain.
if it’s stored properly
For millennia, which we can’t do yet.
nuclear waste can be reprocessed to make it less volatile and radiotoxic
France’s 80 years of nuclear waste takes about the space of an Olympic swimming pool and half.
In a millena, it’ll be 150 swimming pools, and that’s assuming we haven’t found a way to repair/reuse/recycle it in 1000 years. Or not decided to just yeet it on the nearest inhospitable planet via railcannon or something.
If it’s such a non issue, how come we still don’t have a single long term storage facility for spent nuclear fuel in the world? After more than 70 years of nuclear energy production.
Yeah, that must be the reason why the United States pay half a billion dollars of tax payer money each year to the utility companys to compensate their failure in finding a suitable storage location.
In general, one should not look at what happens in the USA and use it as a basis of reality for the rest of the world.
Weird ass country full of whackjobs who dedicate their entire lives into finding the worst possible solutions to problems nobody else but them have created for themselves.
Which is still not operational, just like the dozens of other potential storages, we started building just to find out last minute that they are not suitable. Or even better, those we started using just to find out they were not suitable to begin with later. I’m curious to read how many billions it will cost to retreive the waste from Onkalo in 30 years when we’ve learnt that it’s also not safe for the next million years.
“not operational” as in “construction is not complete”, sure, but they were able to start testing at that facility in 2024, and it will be complete and ready for full operational use in 2026. Just because other storage facilities didn’t work out in the past doesn’t mean new ones are doomed as well. This project has been in development for a few decades now, and they’re learning from all those previous mistakes.
Edit: where in the Yucca Mountain article does it say it’s “not a suitable site”, as you imply? I’m reading the exact opposite in multiple places, and it seems like the halt of operations/construction there was due to political pressure and local sentiment, not because of any safety risks.
France only pushed for nuclear, because they need an excuse for the costs of their nukes and nuclear submarines. The disadvantages of high cost and nuclear waste remain.
For millennia, which we can’t do yet.
Which needs energy.
France’s 80 years of nuclear waste takes about the space of an Olympic swimming pool and half.
In a millena, it’ll be 150 swimming pools, and that’s assuming we haven’t found a way to repair/reuse/recycle it in 1000 years. Or not decided to just yeet it on the nearest inhospitable planet via railcannon or something.
Nuclear waste is a non issue.
If it’s such a non issue, how come we still don’t have a single long term storage facility for spent nuclear fuel in the world? After more than 70 years of nuclear energy production.
“If it’s not an issue, how come we haven’t built a thing to solve it”
Yeah, that must be the reason why the United States pay half a billion dollars of tax payer money each year to the utility companys to compensate their failure in finding a suitable storage location.
In general, one should not look at what happens in the USA and use it as a basis of reality for the rest of the world.
Weird ass country full of whackjobs who dedicate their entire lives into finding the worst possible solutions to problems nobody else but them have created for themselves.
Hey! I also need to lose weight
We do, it’s called really big hole
The money hole?
Which is still not operational, just like the dozens of other potential storages, we started building just to find out last minute that they are not suitable. Or even better, those we started using just to find out they were not suitable to begin with later. I’m curious to read how many billions it will cost to retreive the waste from Onkalo in 30 years when we’ve learnt that it’s also not safe for the next million years.
“not operational” as in “construction is not complete”, sure, but they were able to start testing at that facility in 2024, and it will be complete and ready for full operational use in 2026. Just because other storage facilities didn’t work out in the past doesn’t mean new ones are doomed as well. This project has been in development for a few decades now, and they’re learning from all those previous mistakes.
Edit: where in the Yucca Mountain article does it say it’s “not a suitable site”, as you imply? I’m reading the exact opposite in multiple places, and it seems like the halt of operations/construction there was due to political pressure and local sentiment, not because of any safety risks.