https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal
Coincidentally I was listening to a podcast today discussing nuclear power and their opinions were that there will never be a big reactor built in the US again. There might be these new style micro reactors though.
"Westinghouse announced in July it plans to open 10 new plants in the U.S., with construction starting in 2030." -- https://www.ans.org/news/article-7499/westinghouse-signs-80b...
First is easier: where to build it.
The second is where the waste goes.
Historically, the second issue is not resolved.
And if in the next 100 years or so there is some natural change that makes that location a problem, you move it to another already existing nuclear reactor and leave it there.
If society collapses to such an extent that you do not have the capability to move around some nuclear 'waste' every couple 100 years then your society has much, much bigger problems anyway.
The idea that we can't or shouldn't build nuclear reactor because we don't have a location where we can put things in one place that is safe for 100000 years is just so fucking absurd if you actually think about it. But its not really about thinking, its all just political theater for uniformed people.
We have got to make that measure a target?
It is technically and economically solved.
The "problem" is pure politics. And politicians can play those games without consequence because intermediate storage is also not problematic at all.
But nuclear plants are releasing into the environment nuclear materials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monticello_Nuclear_Generating_... https://apnews.com/article/xcel-energy-nuclear-leak-tritium-...
So acting like there's zero danger is stupid. Not caring about the future generations is also how we got here, so theres that.
But you know, if you were a rational person who cared, you'd google this stuff yourself: https://www.yoursourceone.com/columbia_basin/third-hanford-n...
And that would be an argument about reactor safty not civilian nuclear waste managment anyway.
> So acting like there's zero danger is stupid.
Danger is not zero but its incredibly small. As has been confiremd by every single topic on the subject. Saying 'its not zero' is literally always possible for anything humanity ever does.
> Not caring about the future generations is also how we got here, so theres that.
Usuing rational science based methods for evaluating safty and how figuring out what is actually the best is what I am advocating for going forward.
Instead of how we got here, witch was actually using feelings to pick something that is actually more unsafe and generally worse both for people and for the envoirment. That is what you are doing.
> But you know, if you were a rational person who cared, you'd google this stuff yourself
And if you were actually interested in real discussion or evaluating my actual argment you would more then just google for random nuclear incidents as if they proved your point. But clearly you don't care about that.
I was actually qutite specific in what I said, and you of course ignored, I said civilan nuclear waste. And Hanford does not apply, as it a completely different situation.
So nothing you posted actually address either of the questions I have posed to you. I suppose that is because you don't have an actual answer and instead you just try to distract people with links to random things you could google.