Namely, do you think it has a future in the wave of next gen clean energy sources? If you support it, do you think it will always be viable or that it should only be a temporary measure to get us off fossil fuels while our renewable infrastructure grows?
It’s the waste for me. If we had a way to decontaminate and clean up the wasted nuclear material, then I’d be more okay with nuclear. I think if we are going to use it, it has to be for a significant time just because of how LONG it takes to set up and take down. I’ll always hesitate with the risk factor, so I’d probably never advocate for it in cities or by them, but then rural populations shouldn’t suffer from it just because there are less of them, and the fact that our food grows in areas better suited for isolation for nuclear. I think at this point it’s be better to work on renewables full steam and trying to use older energy sources more efficiently (like a central fire to heat homes/cook food/provide light/etc. )
What’s your opinion on Finland’s long-term nuclear waste storage project? In theory, once the one of the waste chambers is sealed, nothing should be able to get to it again, barring someone deliberately digging a long way into the ground at that location.
It’s a little better, but the waste is still sitting and taking up space. I guess waiting until it’s half-life is an option, but I’d need to see more in terms of how much needs to be used to provide enough energy and the plan for when a natural disaster hits, like earthquake, sinkhole, or something along those lines of shifting and potentially breaking the buried material. Which, I’m sure it is possible just like we are still digging up ancient ruins accidentaly but I’d like to see some science applied to it.