/sci/ - Science & Math

>The problem of discarding spent nuclear fuel has dogged every nation employing NP. There is yet no long term solution. Proponents of NP might cite Finland's Onkalo, the world's first permanent geologic repository, as the answer. But a repository like Onkalo costs RM12.5bil to build, nuclear waste must be isolated for at least 100,000 years, and we have to tell an extremely distant future generation to monitor the said repository a feat the US Academy of Science deems impossible.

nuclear waste is a non-problem, as long as civilization continues, temp. storage is perfectly adequate(better then long term storage, actually, as it allows easy recycling in the future) If civilization does fall, temp. storage is still adequate as in that cause who gives a shit?

>waah-waah indigenous people
fuck their shit

>delays
caused by politics, not tech

>The fuel used in NP plants, uranium, is the same material or the precursor to that used in nuclear bombs. As more NP plants are operated, more materials for nuclear bombs become available. Even the pro-nuclear MIT study concedes proliferation is a grave consequence of a worldwide expansion of NP, saying “with modest nuclear infrastructure, any nation could acquire material needed for several (nuclear) weapons”.

a non-issues for First World counties


You complain about cost (mostly caused by using 50 year old tech, and anti-nuke politics) but champion renewables, conveniently failing to mention the obscene cost of powering the world on them. You complain about the environmental damage, while insuring continued reliance on the infinitely more polluting coal and oil.

You are not arguing with logic or science, but with Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt

nukes, nukes everywhere