• escapesamsara@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Literally in any of the hundreds of current underground sites? It’s also not highly toxic, it’s radioactive. There’s a pretty huge difference. Nuclear waste doesn’t leech into the water cycle like the run off of broken solar panels or turbine arms.

    • Sheeprevenge@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am in the EU. There is literally no storage for highly radioactive waste. There has been talk for years that one will be available, but so far… nothing.

      Nuclear waste doesn’t leech into the water cycle

      That’s not true. Nuclear waste can also contaminate ground water, if stored incorrectly. And as we discussed: we have no storage solution for the highly radioactive waste and thus can’t store it correctly.

      • escapesamsara@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am in the EU. There is literally no storage for highly radioactive waste.

        Pay to store it in Finland, like everyone else is doing. They currently have a facility that isn’t even a quarter full and can be heavily expanded.

        That’s not true. Nuclear waste can also contaminate ground water, if stored incorrectly. And as we discussed: we have no storage solution for the highly radioactive waste and thus can’t store it correctly.

        Solar panels can contaminate ground water if stored incorrectly, that’s a useless statement.

        And as discussed there are thousands of storage facilities available. Just because your specific economic union has not built one yet, does not mean you cannot use one of the commercial ones, and by the way these long-term storage facilities aren’t the part that store the waste safely. The containers do, and short of a nuclear bomb going off the waste isn’t escaping them. So much so that despite waste existing since the 1960s, there has never been an incident of nuclear waste escaping containment. Ever. Coal spillages have caused more radioactive contamination than nuclear waste.

        • Sheeprevenge@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Pay to store it in Finland, like everyone else is doing. They currently have a facility that isn’t even a quarter full and can be heavily expanded

          They don’t have storage for highly radioactive waste (as I said), only low to medium radioactive. A high radioactive solution is planned for years, but currently it is still not available.

          Solar panels can contaminate ground water if stored incorrectly, that’s a useless statement.

          That’s still a strawman argument. Just because I argue against nuclear power, I don’t automatically believe that another solution is perfect. Also that doesn’t change that the highly nuclear waste has no storage.

          Just because your specific economic union has not built one yet, does not mean you cannot use one of the commercial ones

          We can’t use one, because there is none.

          The containers do, and short of a nuclear bomb going off the waste isn’t escaping them

          Currently Castor Containers are used. They are designed for 40 years of storage. That’s nothing compared to the time the waste has to be stored safely.

          So much so that despite waste existing since the 1960s, there has never been an incident of nuclear waste escaping containment

          That’s also not true. We even have two new species of alligators because of containment with nuclear waste: Tritagator and Dioxinator