The ammount of radioactive waste is tiny relative to normal dumps, and as described before, it is easy to deal with, dig a deep hole, put the waste in it, refill it.

Boom problem solved.

I wish it were that simple. Meanwhile, in reality:

https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/scientists-say-nuclear-fuel-pools-around-the-country-pose-safety-and-health-risks/

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/safer-storage-spent-nuclear-fuel

https://www.epri.com/research/products/000000003002000640

https://blog.ucsusa.org/dlochbaum/possible-source-of-leaks-at-spent-fuel-pools-at/

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML120970249.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK373720/

from the hill article:

So Biden never explicitly made a one-term promise during the campaign

ok. Look I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just never heard biden say that and wondered what I'd missed. The Hill article goes on to state:

but he certainly implied it with the language of “transition.”

yeeaah, uh, I'm going to vote for him because < HAHA FUCKING HELLSCAPE PROJECT 2025 > either way

citation requested thanks

nothing, not a single thing you've argued, will in any way reduce the radioactive leftovers nuclear reactors produce and most of the world is putting off for the next generation to fix.

Like climate change.

How many crises do you think those poor kids are going to be able to manage at once?

Trumps replies seldom had any connection to the thread/question posed by moderator. he was simply waiting for his turn to ramble a gish gallop out.

Why doesn’t anyone call him out on lying about running for a second term?

never saw this. citation requested thanks

yeah, I get it, you're whole hog on it, the enthusiasm comes through loud and clear.

I don't agree, but there's no amount of sense that's going to sway the already decided.

there’s literally centuries for us to figure out a way to make those waste useful for us.

yes, I'm sure we'll hop on fixing this enormous issue with all the same urgency we've treated it with so far...

yep, they're awesome, and may sidestep some of the HUGE investments in gigantic infrastructure - one day. What you conveniently leave out is no one is doing this yet at scale; china's got one test reactor going last time I looked.

I personally love the idea, but the nuclear industry here in the US is obsessed with large steam turbine setups in the multiple megawatt scale; even small modular reactors are getting side eyes.

So yeah, it exists, but it's not going to displace the current tech (which is really 60's tech with better electronics).

why bother investing enormous amounts of money into a tech that's already problematic? when there are better solutions at hand?

I'm not anti-nuclear, I just think further investment into it is misguided when there are so many other options that don't create tens of thousands of years of radioisotopes that have to go somewhere.

good on Scandinavia, the rest of the world isn't in such privileged positions. As seen in Fukushima. As seen in the hundreds of cooling ponds all over the US.

lolol