(March 13, 2013 at 6:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: @ German "The waste" is a problem for any energy producing technology (solar is dirty, so is wind and tidal and geo and bio.......), Imma go out on a limb and say "the waste" from nuclear has thusfar not presented quite the problem tht the waste from fossil fuels has, nor is it actually so difficult to successfully sequester that waste. You just keep it dry and keep it deep. You know, in places like the place we purpose built for nuclear waste but decided to defund not for technical or safety reasons...but for political ones.......
:hangs head in shame for america:
You cannot equate one evil with another.
Sure nuclear energy doesnt cause waste that harms the climate.
And I am unaware of the waste which wind and solar causes.
Point is, nuclear energy is not an alternative to fossil fuels because it produces nuclear waste and has proven to have catastophic consequences when accidents occure.
Plus. To simply "keep it cold and dry" is not "simple".
The ground is a constantly moving and not always dry thing.
Adding to that, one has to store the waste for a million year.
Maybe big numbers have turned to seem little with todays value of money and ecetera, but let me make it clear: A million years is a long time!
Who will pay the costs of storing the stuff? who will give the guarantee of safety? where can it be stored safely and if nowhere how can it be put out of storage and repositioned?
Do you have any idea what a logistical mastery that would require?
Not to mention the enormous amounts of money one would need to spend.
And who would pay that money? The energy companies? - Do you even believe that these will exist for the upcoming 1 000 000 years???
Nope, nuclear power is simply not worth the risk.
