When green energy harms the enviroment

[The Grand Nudger]

I doubt that the manufacturing and transportation of the fuel rods required for nuclear power plants are cheaper than the manufacturing of solar panels and wind turbines.

We could talk about cost, sure. I thought we were comparing waste, waste is one component (often overlooked) of cost..of course.

It sounds simple, if one forgets that the earth under us is everything but static.

No, it's simple mostly because we know that it isn't, if we didn't, we wouldn't know to make provisions for such activity.

And do you know a place on the planet in which the underground hasnt seen any kind of geological activity for 10 000 - 1 000 000 years?

That's not a requirement for waste disposal. See above.

the operators - company - not capable of giving a million year guarantee

Probably not, but why would it matter if this were the case. It's already been explained to you that you're working with an inflated number - but to be fair- the actual number is still large, and I doubt that any agency is capable of making such a garuantee, but whomever takes control or responsibility it will be up to them to maintain. It is a continuing chain of responsibility (like most things), and if someone in the future bitches about those responsibilities o-kay........but they'll have to acknowledge that without power of some kind they wouldn't be around to bitch.

overseeing agencies - the state - meaning that everyone would have to pay for occassional safe depositry and the repeating transportation cicles for 10 000 - 1000 000 years.

Is that really something worth advocating?

Yep, like public access to quality drinking water. We already pay fees related to the disposal and storage of nuclear waste (even though we aren't actually engaging in it). Shitty eh?

Can you show me something that mankind has undergone as a project which has lasted for 10 000 - 1 000 000 years?

Language, social structure, tool making, agriculture. Other examples but you get the gist. Really important stuff, I think energy qualifies as "really important stuff".

your goverment sown fault. Kinf of seemend obvious that the naiv optimism sourrounding nuclear energy in the 50s woud hve some negative sideeffects. If that contract was signed in the 50s.

Well, certain segments of our representatives fault, yes. The bill and subsequent contracts were signed in 1982 and 87. I'm not spouting out any 50's optimism, I'm being realistic about this and mentioning where development and cash flow went and why. I keep getting herp derps in return.

Are you sure? No one expected Fukushima to go up in smoke?
It is the unexpected things one should be worried about, and when a risk is simply to high to take because the casualties would be to many - then one shouldnt take that risk.

A great many unexpected things were hedged against, including the event that knocked out the backup generators, I've already mentioned this- and this is old tech on top of that.... Don't even start in on casualties or I'll start to talk about rolling worldwide blackouts due to insufficient power generation, and the effects of increased consumption of fossil fuels. Again, nuclear power - even when we consider the disasters- has a very good track record, especially relative to our other fuel sources. Granted, other power sources have a head start on nuclear, and maybe with enough time it would meet and exceed their respective death tolls - but I'm not much of a fortune teller so I'll leave that to the wondering.

---

On a related note, if we could just build a better damned battery my tune would probably change drastically. Energy is produced "on demand". We currently lack the ability to store energy in the quantities required that - if this were not the case- would make a massive slew of alternatives at least equal to nuclear and fossil fuels in most applications if not preferable.