←back to thread

425 points nixass | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.214s | source
Show context
pinacarlos90 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
pbak ◴[] No.26675201[source]
Indeed, but then how long does your moral responsibility last. Will the United State exist in a thousand year ? Will there still be an organization to monitor the place for leaks ? How deep is deep enough ?

Also, what about Not the United States ? It seems everybody is synchronizing policies, if you hear the rumblings out of the European Commission. Where are they gonna store the wast ?

replies(3): >>26675257 #>>26676519 #>>26680952 #
1. stjohnswarts ◴[] No.26680952[source]
Lol human civilization won't be around at all in a thousand years if we don't do it with all the climate change occurring.