Meh, it's a pittance compared to the trash fossil fuels generate. If the largest price of our energy providers is we have to dig a big hole in the middle of a desert somewhere and make it unlivable for a few thousand years then I think we can live with that.
I hate that the first thing everyone thinks with nuclear waste is "just dump it in a fragile ecosystem." Deserts may not support as much life as woodlands or fields, but they hold many unique species which live a very fragile existence. Why not carve out the inside of a mountain, a place nothing lives?
I was oversimplifying, but that is the general consensus for nuclear waste. You find a geologically stable mountain range in the middle of a desert where there's not a ton of wildlife to worry about and dig straight down a few hundred meters and slap a lead slab on top for good measure. Yucca Mountain is the archetypal one I had in mind.
Meh, it's a pittance compared to the trash fossil fuels generate. If the largest price of our energy providers is we have to dig a big hole in the middle of a desert somewhere and make it unlivable for a few thousand years then I think we can live with that.
I hate that the first thing everyone thinks with nuclear waste is "just dump it in a fragile ecosystem." Deserts may not support as much life as woodlands or fields, but they hold many unique species which live a very fragile existence. Why not carve out the inside of a mountain, a place nothing lives?
I was oversimplifying, but that is the general consensus for nuclear waste. You find a geologically stable mountain range in the middle of a desert where there's not a ton of wildlife to worry about and dig straight down a few hundred meters and slap a lead slab on top for good measure. Yucca Mountain is the archetypal one I had in mind.
Yucca mountain is a shoshone sacred site and the colonists have no buisness dumping uranium there.
Well, shit. I had no idea, yeah fuck that then. There has to be another mountain that fits the criteria out there though.
Agreed.