• @Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    -86 months ago

    I don’t see how kicking it down the road is really a problem in this scenario, as that’s pretty much all you can do with nuclear waste, wait until it’s not dangerous.

    So, by your own words, there’s no safe way to get rid of nuclear waste besides storing it and hoping things will work out.

    Also, nuclear plants would take as long to build as other, safer methods.

    • @TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      86 months ago

      by your own words, there’s no safe way to get rid of nuclear waste besides storing it and hoping things will work out.

      I think you’re purposely misconstruing the meaning of safe. I think deep isolation is a proven method of safely storing radioactive material until it decays.

      You are claiming it’s unsafe, or “kicking the can down the road”, but haven’t explained your reasoning. Perhaps if you had any examples of how deep isolation has failed, or ways you think it will fail, it may strengthen your argument

      Also, nuclear plants would take as long to build as other, safer methods.

      Again, you are claiming things are safer, but haven’t explained how? All forms of energy production have their positive and negative attributes, however safety isn’t really a problem usually attributed to nuclear energy.

      Time is generally an actual criticism of nuclear power, but a lot of length of time isn’t really inherent in the actual construction of the power plant, which can be completed in as little as 3-5 years. It’s usually the same problem as your first claim, the governments inability to deal with NIMBY campaigns and private interest.

    • Monkey With A Shell
      link
      fedilink
      -16 months ago

      I wonder what the costs would be to just literally launch it into the sun. Let it all get recompiled in the big fusion furnace and out of our hands. Of course if the rocket failed during launch you have a real big problem, but that part aside.

      • @Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        36 months ago

        The Space Shuttle Challenger has entered the chat.

        Not sure anyone would sign off on sending potential dirty bombs into space.

        A few years back people were floating the idea of sending up orbital solar farms that would collect power and beam it to the surface.

        • @TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          26 months ago

          Not sure anyone would sign off on sending potential dirty bombs into space.

          At least not anymore… We did a successful test of a nuclear powered ramjet in the 60’s with project Neptune. But I guess that was before people were afraid of dirty bombs welded into the shape of cruise missiles.

            • @splatt9990@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              16 months ago

              There was also a plan to explode nuclear bombs on shorelines to create artificial harbors, and of course the infamous Project Orion, a manned interstellar spaceship powered by exploding hydrogen bombs. Doing unhinged shit with nukes was all the rage back then I guess

              • @Dagwood222@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                16 months ago

                If you haven’t seen it, “The Three Body Problem” is a good series with a lot of wild ideas.

                They use the hydrogen bomb spaceship idea.

            • @SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              06 months ago

              Be honest, if you had a lot of nukes lying around, you wouldn’t at least consider nuking the moon?

              Also when you think about it, nuking the Moon is way less insane than nuking the Earth over 2000 times.

      • Echo Dot
        link
        fedilink
        26 months ago

        Even if we had a magic 100% reliable rocket it still wouldn’t be a good idea to send it into space. You’d have to have a stupidly powerful magic 100% reliable rocket to get into a solar intercept orbit, otherwise it would just hang around the Earth for a very long time and eventually come back down as nuclear fire dust.

        It’s not as if storing it underground is an unsafe strategy so it seems like a pointless exercise.

        • Monkey With A Shell
          link
          fedilink
          16 months ago

          Thus the 'aside from launch failure’s part. No rocket scientist here, but way I figure if we can send probes to do flyby photos of the outer planets how hard can it be to hit the biggest thing in our system?

          Lift costs might be stupidly high too, but more a would it be possible thought.

          • Echo Dot
            link
            fedilink
            16 months ago

            Because the other planets are in orbit of the sun like the Earth is. The sun itself is stationary, so not only do you have to go all the way over there, you also have to cancel out the rotation of the Earth.