←back to thread

Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says

(arstechnica.com)
425 points nixass | 1 comments | 02 Apr 21 18:00 UTC | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
pinacarlos90 ◴[02 Apr 21 18:39 UTC] No.26674447[source]▶
There is a bad stigma associated with nuclear energy that I just don’t understand - Nuclear less impact to the environment when compared to other energy sources. What is is the problem with nuclear? Is it the cost of maintaining these power plants ?
replies(11): >>26674500 #>>26674513 #>>26674514 #>>26674523 #>>26674541 #>>26674577 #>>26675060 #>>26675306 #>>26675329 #>>26675491 #>>26676134 #
savant_penguin ◴[02 Apr 21 18:44 UTC] No.26674514[source]▶
The problem is what to do with the nuclear waste you constantly produce. And the risks associated with having a new Fukushima in your hands. And the proliferation of nuclear technology.

That said it still seems better than many alternatives

replies(3): >>26674536 #>>26674553 #>>26674554 #
ceejayoz ◴[02 Apr 21 18:45 UTC] No.26674536[source]▶
> The problem is what to do with the nuclear waste you constantly produce.

We know what to do with it. Bury it, deep and somewhere remote. The US already has such a place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...

replies(2): >>26675201 #>>26675516 #
1. josefresco ◴[02 Apr 21 20:20 UTC] No.26675516[source]▶
not yet!

"In the meantime, most nuclear power plants in the United States have resorted to the indefinite on-site dry cask storage of waste in steel and concrete casks.[14]"

Our local region just fought to shut down a plant, and now the fight continues on where to ship (or not) the waste. In the meantime of course, they're fighting over these short term store options which have guarantees of only 25 years.