You mean the nuclear waste that we banned companies from using as nuclear fuel for modern reactors? I think you will find that regulation actually stopped us from solving this problem.
> It's not working for corals either.
Imagine if we had much more nuclear power so we didn't produce enormous amounts of CO2! The corals would be in a much better position.
The "environmental movement" has been an anti-nuclear power movement that doesn't care about the environment since the beginning sadly. They've managed to harm the environment more than all nuclear accidents by several orders of magnitude.
> You mean the nuclear waste that we banned companies from using as nuclear fuel for modern reactors?
There is no need to ban this because it (and reprocessing in general) is economically idiotic. It would be like saying government bans prevent companies from setting money on fire.
Dry cask storage is a quite acceptable and economical way to deal with nuclear waste. The demand that something permanent be done immediately reflects a desire to use waste as a lever against nuclear energy. Nuclear fans would do well not to fall into this trap and think immediate reprocessing is necessary or desirable.
Sure, it's fine, but we've ALSO effectively banned research into reactor types that use "nuclear waste" as fuel. In Sweden it's not even effectively, we had laws on the books until quite recently that banned nuclear research.
This simply isn't true. Not as much may have been invested in said research, but that's more a reflection of the lack of a business case for such things. They are not a magical panacea to all of nuclear's woes.
Your logic reminds me of people who confuse consumer preference with boycotts.
The lack of a business case is do to the regulatory environment. The nuclear regulatory agency that was set up to license new nuclear plants just didn't. For decades they stalled all applications. That's why the industry died.
It hasn't worked with nuclear waste, has it?
It's not working for corals either. The rest of them will be dead in 10 or 15 years. And they are the ecosystem for 25% of the Ocean's species.
When is this expensive environmental mitigation going to turn the tide around?
> It hasn't worked with nuclear waste, has it?
You mean the nuclear waste that we banned companies from using as nuclear fuel for modern reactors? I think you will find that regulation actually stopped us from solving this problem.
> It's not working for corals either.
Imagine if we had much more nuclear power so we didn't produce enormous amounts of CO2! The corals would be in a much better position.
The "environmental movement" has been an anti-nuclear power movement that doesn't care about the environment since the beginning sadly. They've managed to harm the environment more than all nuclear accidents by several orders of magnitude.
> You mean the nuclear waste that we banned companies from using as nuclear fuel for modern reactors?
There is no need to ban this because it (and reprocessing in general) is economically idiotic. It would be like saying government bans prevent companies from setting money on fire.
Dry cask storage is a quite acceptable and economical way to deal with nuclear waste. The demand that something permanent be done immediately reflects a desire to use waste as a lever against nuclear energy. Nuclear fans would do well not to fall into this trap and think immediate reprocessing is necessary or desirable.
Sure, it's fine, but we've ALSO effectively banned research into reactor types that use "nuclear waste" as fuel. In Sweden it's not even effectively, we had laws on the books until quite recently that banned nuclear research.
> effectively banned
This simply isn't true. Not as much may have been invested in said research, but that's more a reflection of the lack of a business case for such things. They are not a magical panacea to all of nuclear's woes.
Your logic reminds me of people who confuse consumer preference with boycotts.
The lack of a business case is do to the regulatory environment. The nuclear regulatory agency that was set up to license new nuclear plants just didn't. For decades they stalled all applications. That's why the industry died.
Growth is also why we need expensive environmental mitigation.
On balance I still like growth and would rather have it than not. But let's be honest about it.