to specifically power plant ones?
Wow! All very good arguments against the use of nuclear energy! Good job.
This is acceptable if the lifespan is considerable
I agree
IMO, because of the nature of nuclear facilities, banning (existing facilities) would not necessarily mean a complete shutdown but changing the mode from active production to maintenance (to limit safety concerns). It becomes a perpetual cost.
Why do you assume so, when our lab stopped the reactor, we even have to use robot to do the job because of the danger involved. Why you think I do not know the danger and other ramifications, including jobs and such, of stopping them?
That's why they should not be in there in the first place like I suggested in the first post. Corporates rushed to it carelessly because of arrogance and greed. Not because they try to be green nor responsible of the future waste. Therefore, we cannot make same mistakes 104 times over and go into the 105th times until we really know what we are doing. Furthermore, I did not say nor think shutting everything down tomorrow is a solution ever. Even shutting them down need planning. I am not so stupid.
There is another way of managing the waste if they planned ahead. Spent fuel can be recycled. US is the major nuclear country who do not think of the long term disposal of the waste. Couple other countries do recycling of the waste and kept the foot print small. Recycling increase cost to about 5-6 percent. So, even though mining uranium is much unhealthier to the miners than most, if not all, other kinds of energy sources due to the Radon gas, the utility companies in US continue to mine new fuel and pile the spent ones up in the plant. The nuclear piled up in the all plants can power US for at 12-15 years. With reducing cost being a high priority, cleaning up of the mines are largely ignored that hundreds of nuclear mines are abandoned in Navajo Nation, Idaho, Utah and some other states posing SERIOUS health hazards in the area. It is simply because the corporates want to save money, not that they cannot do a better job.
Under the current tradition of the how US nuclear plants manage their spent fuel, continue running the nuclear sites share the SAME risk as decommissioning the sites because spent fuel are just kept at the current site. This add more risk liability to the site as the pile grows bigger. Decommissioning the site, will stop it from adding more spent fuel, then we are only dealing with what's left there.
Under the current tradition of the how US nuclear plants manage their spent fuel, continue running the nuclear sites share the SAME risk as decommissioning the sites because spent fuel are just kept at the current site. This add more risk liability to the site as the pile grows bigger. Decommissioning the site, will stop it from adding more spent fuel, then we are only dealing with what's left there.
