My understanding is the waste problem is overblown?

It gets sealed in fuck-off huge concrete cylinders, and the volume of waste compared to the energy generated, it's just a no brainer. Also depending on reactor type the waste can be recycled.

Are you referring to the 40 year "service life" of the containment units? Or something else?

▲

grepfru_it 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Waste can only be recycled so far (advances in nuclear technology and kicking the can)

Service life of containment units is one thing. Where to store those sealed off cylinders. And the increase in waste as power demand skyrockets.

During the time I was involved in the negotiations of waste storage (which was made extremely difficult due to NIMBY votes), the prediction of energy demand was a lot lower (which probably is what led to the widespread acceptance of nuclear). Now that AI is anticipating enormous energy demands, and eyeing nuclear as that energy source, this problem is returning with a vengeance. Let me be very clear this is not a problem in either our lifetime, our children’s lifetime, or our children’s children’s lifetime. But neither was oil during the industrial revolution..

For those downvoting, please provide a response and have a discussion.

▲

qmr 8 hours ago | parent [-]

What is the alternative then?

How's that beamed solar thing from simcity 2000 coming along?

Global warming from fossil fuels is going to be a problem before mountains of nuclear waste, no?

	▲	jiggawatts 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The Chinese have figured out how to capture the energy from an unshielded fusion reactor in space. Unfortunately the radiation falls globally, so going outside without adequate protection can give you a nasty radiation burn. Not to worry, Trump plans to burn enough coal to black out the sky and protect us all.