You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Nuclear energy, fuel for the future or better left in the past?
better left for the past.
We have no place to store it. Well unless you plan on being around for the half-life of some of the nice things that have a half-life longer than the Holocene.
Great post though!
Thanks for stopping by!
That is part of the point I try to make. Why do we assume we do have place to store the 9 Gigatons of carbon we produce each year. There are possible ways to store material for such a long period deep under ground (I must admit that this has not been undertaken yet) where it should stay stable. I mentioned it in a previous comment as well:
I think it all boils down to the question: Do we want a lot of slightly bad carbon waste that we cannot contain, or do we want a fraction of that waste (less then one millionth to be precise) but which is highly dangerous and lasts 100 times longer. And perhaps this will always be a personal choice.
Really good points!
In response to your follow up of:
"Do we want a lot of slightly bad carbon waste that we cannot contain, or do we want a fraction of that waste (less then one millionth to be precise) but which is highly dangerous and lasts 100 times longer. And perhaps this will always be a personal choice."
I vote lots of slightly bad carbon waste we cannot *yet contain over smaller but super dangerous radioactive waste with no place to put it.
This is because the harsh radioactive waste effects all life that comes in contact with it. Reminds me of the book "the beach".
Thanks for the great post!