What is their definition of safe?
> It's the "Asse II mine" joke all over again
It would be good to see the cost/benefit analysis of the proposal to remove everything from the mine
https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/meetings/2018/marc... page 17 has backfilling as the preferred option in 4 out of the 5 assessment categories.
Some claim that nuclear waste repositories are perfect (0 risk), and experts disagree.
> backfilling
Yay, such a superb gift to our children, their children, their children...!
The underlying point is about how much renewables and how much nuclear may we build in order to tackle current challenges (climate, pollution...), one of the criteria is waste and renewables win hands down.
Disagreement is natural in science as well as engineering. And absolutes are not. Framing nuclear waste disposal, or in fact any enterprise, in terms of finding total agreement on total safety is not useful.
> one of the criteria is waste and renewables win hands down
In what terms are we to assess the waste? By volume, likely number of people killed over the lifetime of the waste, maximum number killed? Do we count the waste from manufacturing as well?
Indeed, my point was about a form of propaganda quite common in France, which states that long-term waste repositories (now work-in-progress) will be perfectly safe. They won't.
> assess the waste?
Most of renewables' waste is recyclable, and more and more is recycled, even wind turbine blades.
> likely number of people killed over the lifetime of the waste
The more types of waste and the longer the lifetime (nuclear...), the more difficult it is.
> count the waste from manufacturing
As far as I understand yes, an adequate life-cycle assessment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment ) has to do so, however this is a good point: it may somewhat be neglected.