• erin (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • LordKitsuna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

        • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 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