Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gore1FL

(22,951 posts)
27. Let's check back in a few 100,000 years. As I have stated may times on this sub thread, and thread
Fri Feb 11, 2022, 01:32 AM
Feb 2022

It's the long-term nature of it that is the problem. Suggesting their is no current issue amount to the mere dismissal of the existence of time and the associated long-term costs. Looking only at the short-term expenditures or relying on some future scientific utopia to come along and fix it all are not reasonable ways to be dismissive of the associated cost and dangers.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Love it! (nt) Hugh_Lebowski Feb 2022 #1
No! Wrong direction! This could be the end of us. TeamProg Feb 2022 #2
This is truly worrisome........NC DENVERPOPS Feb 2022 #3
Nuclear is the only feasible way to achieve our power needs oldsoftie Feb 2022 #5
We COULD rely on wind and solar if the money was invested, but no, the powers that be want to TeamProg Feb 2022 #6
Money is only 1 issue. We simply don't have enough MATERIAL to make as much as needed. oldsoftie Feb 2022 #30
The areas the TVA serves is not conducive to reliable wind power generation. Calista241 Feb 2022 #41
Agree. hippywife Feb 2022 #7
Other countries seemed to have figured it out. former9thward Feb 2022 #20
Really? Have they? hippywife Feb 2022 #21
This is how France does it. former9thward Feb 2022 #24
Thank you. Newer technologies have made it even better. oldsoftie Feb 2022 #31
That's still not a solution. hippywife Feb 2022 #43
Here you go cinematicdiversions Feb 2022 #32
The waste really isn't such a large amount. LiberalArkie Feb 2022 #10
The problem is the small amount still has to be stored for Billions of years. Gore1FL Feb 2022 #18
No, its $20 a year. former9thward Feb 2022 #22
I bet they said the same thing burning coal and oil and wood while clearing woodlands. Gore1FL Feb 2022 #25
Other countries, such as France, deal with it just fine. former9thward Feb 2022 #26
Let's check back in a few 100,000 years. As I have stated may times on this sub thread, and thread Gore1FL Feb 2022 #27
We DID figure it out. We invented nuclear. oldsoftie Feb 2022 #33
We haven't quite figured out nuclear, though. Gore1FL Feb 2022 #39
Not billions, but a few hundred thousand years Polybius Feb 2022 #53
Modern Nuclear is by far the safest and most environmentally friendly choice. cinematicdiversions Feb 2022 #14
They said the same thing about "modern nuclear plants" in the '60's. TeamProg Feb 2022 #28
And how many died in the US from nuclear power accidents? None. oldsoftie Feb 2022 #40
Many U.S. Navy vessels are nuclear-powered dalton99a Feb 2022 #47
Excellent point. Totally forgot about them. oldsoftie Feb 2022 #60
Okay, I'll play. How many people have died from Solar, Geothermic or Wind power? TeamProg Feb 2022 #51
The same number. And comparing Chernobyl to anything in the US is ridiculous. oldsoftie Feb 2022 #56
Why? Source something. This has been in the works a long time. ancianita Feb 2022 #35
Fossil fuels will be the end of us if we don't quit them now. hunter Feb 2022 #38
Good! But 20+ years late. It truly is the ONLY way to get where we need to be oldsoftie Feb 2022 #4
NOOO. This is insane. There is no way to dispose of the waste. Jessus H people are you serious? Evolve Dammit Feb 2022 #8
Waste worries are the reason we stopped building reactors in the 70's NickB79 Feb 2022 #9
Totally disagree. Until there is a way to dispose of the waste, rad waste poses much greater risk Evolve Dammit Feb 2022 #11
We've entered the 6th mass extinction event due to carbon emissions NickB79 Feb 2022 #13
There seems to be no science behind your claims. NT cinematicdiversions Feb 2022 #16
The half life for Uranium is 4.5 Billion years. Gore1FL Feb 2022 #19
The half life of many dangerous fossil fuel wastes is FOREVER. hunter Feb 2022 #44
Fossile fules are not radioactive and thius do not have a half life. Gore1FL Feb 2022 #46
I used to be an anti-nuclear activist, and a fairly radical one at that. hunter Feb 2022 #54
The argument "we do dangerous things with other materials" isn't a strong one. Gore1FL Feb 2022 #55
No one ever researches the downside of solar & wind production. oldsoftie Feb 2022 #57
experience Evolve Dammit Feb 2022 #48
"experience' isn't science. Reality is. oldsoftie Feb 2022 #58
Reality is there is no safe way to handle and store long-term. I'm not going to argue this further. Evolve Dammit Feb 2022 #62
The company CEO says this system actually reduces nuclear waste. ancianita Feb 2022 #36
of course he does. Read Rachel Maddow's Blowout for a comprehensive look into energy history. Evolve Dammit Feb 2022 #49
I read it. Don't remember her focus on nuclear, just fossil conglomerates and global networks. ancianita Feb 2022 #50
I was referring to the sales pitches by all the execs including the nuclear detonation in CO. Evolve Dammit Feb 2022 #61
Newer generation nuclear power designs do not produce the quantity of waste Calista241 Feb 2022 #42
Imagine if we have a major Carrington event and we can't get power to keep spent fuel pools cool. roamer65 Feb 2022 #12
We could melt down every reactor on the planet and not see an ELE NickB79 Feb 2022 #15
I think we eventually find out. roamer65 Feb 2022 #17
From the way they are describing the reactors get are considering HariSeldon Feb 2022 #23
FUCK OFF!!! C Moon Feb 2022 #29
So you think solar tech changed since the 80s but not nuclear technology? oldsoftie Feb 2022 #34
I'm with you. They're worth trying. ancianita Feb 2022 #37
And this is why nothing significant to end climate change will get done. marie999 Feb 2022 #45
There you have it! oldsoftie Feb 2022 #59
Couldn't the nuke waste be launched into the Sun? n/t Yanicosco Feb 2022 #52
Would have it to get into space on rockets that occasionally don't want to make it up into space Sapient Donkey Feb 2022 #63
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Largest US public power c...»Reply #27