Hacker News Reader

Comment by giomasce | Hacker News Reader

If it is so simple, I wonder why the problem takes so much discussion to be solved...

That is actually the hint it isn't a problem. It is being treated as though it isn't a problem and that is working.

If it were actually a problem, someone would have to do something about it. The volumes are so small they can simply be stored in an ad-hoc matter.

It is a mystery why people get so fixated on the waste. It is very hard to articulate a problem apart from the fact that it goes away eventually (unlike most waste which sits there pretty much forever). We produce a lot of dangerous substances; nuclear waste isn't the worst of them.

Because there's little reason to solve it right now. The amount of waste is low enough and technology advances so quickly that we're better off putting this decision off. There's a good chance that some of the waste could be used as fuel itself in the future. There's also a good chance that a century from now, we can build a much better permanent storage facility than right now.

Because of the irrational fear of nuclear.

The waste is irrationally still radiating for 10.000 years? A reactor might be safe in some sense, but the waste certainly is not.

I mean, the chemical waste from photovoltaic production is also still poison for 10,000+ years - lots of heavy metals and other nasty shit there. But we don't seem to be quite so afraid of it...

What percentage of the waste is radiating for 10000 years? And how radioactive is it? Without facts, precise facts to back it up your statement looks irrational indeed.

Obviously nuclear waste is dangerous, but it's still safer for the planet than the massive amounts of gasses emitted to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. As opposed to radioactive casks, these gasses cannot be contained deep, deep under ground forever, they can only be released to change our environment in ways neither we nor the nature are prepared to deal with.

I'd rather manage nuclear waste in a remote site for 10000 years than needing to build up a permanent desalination effort to keep mankind supplied with drinkable water.

Don't forget that there are already nuclear waste sites that are managed by the government. It's just a small operational cost for today's governments.

There doesn't seem to be a believe that governments will be around for 10000 years to keep this managed securely. But honestly, if society deteriorates to the point it can no longer organize a government, a few highly radioactive spots on earth are not going to be a huge deal.

Nuclear waste facilities also have nice economies of scale in the sense that a single site's incremental cost of storing an additional ton of nuclear waste is negligible. So unlike global warming, you're not saddling the future generations up with a massive bill.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com