> That's true, neutron bombardment and nuclear fission probably produce a lot of short-lived isotopes, which are much hotter than the U235 or U238 that we mined out of the earth. But after the short-lived isotopes decay, we are left with less hot, but longer life isotopes. Would it be more safe to distribute those widely instead of concentrating them? Anyway, I don't have enough knowledge to make an informed judgement on that particular topic, so I will try to keep an open mind.
The thing that's particularly annoying is you don't want to get groundwater leeching stuff, and you need to keep cooling fans running for sure so that the fuel doesn't get hot and smoke. After that, it's a pretty boring pile of heavy metal waste.
> These are industries which tend to privatize the profits and socialize the costs,
Note that fairly generous costs for disposal have been collected from the whole industry. There's just a question of how we actually spend them to dispose stuff.
> Note that fairly generous costs for disposal have been collected from the whole industry. There's just a question of how we actually spend them to dispose stuff.
I'm not sure I trust that they calculated the cost of disposal properly. Because if the disposal cost was more than the revenue generated by the nuclear industry, the entire industry would have become unprofitable. The lobbyists and politicians would never have allowed the regulators to collect enough. Hence socializing the cost.
On the other hand, if we find that we aren't de-carbonizing fast enough, and the cost of global warming is far higher than the harm caused by the nuclear industry, then I think we have no choice but to increase our nuclear energy production. But I have serious doubts that our political system, our current political climate, and regulatory capture in the nuclear industry will allow that policy decision to be made in a competent manner. It's a conundrum.
> I'm not sure I trust that they calculated the cost of disposal properly. Because if the disposal cost was more than the revenue generated by the nuclear industry, the entire industry would have become unprofitable. The lobbyists and politicians would never have allowed the regulators to collect enough. Hence socializing the cost.
I don't believe that's the case, looking at the actual reserves... and looking at the overall regulatory climate for nuclear. NRC has been a pretty strict regulator that hasn't been very hesitant to apply uneconomic costs to nuclear operators, which is part of why nuclear is so expensive. Indeed, nuclear has been structurally unprofitable in the face of very cheap natural gas from fracking, which is one reason why you don't see operators lining up to spend capital to open nuclear plants.
Compare to fossil fuel plants: 100% of the harms are socialized (national security, health effects from particulates, global warming, etc). Here, you're asserting without evidence that the cost of waste disposal may have been underestimated.
The thing that's particularly annoying is you don't want to get groundwater leeching stuff, and you need to keep cooling fans running for sure so that the fuel doesn't get hot and smoke. After that, it's a pretty boring pile of heavy metal waste.
> These are industries which tend to privatize the profits and socialize the costs,
Note that fairly generous costs for disposal have been collected from the whole industry. There's just a question of how we actually spend them to dispose stuff.