That's true. If we estimated the risks for the next 100,000 years then these numbers would change immensely.
A hundred years of burning coal has damaged our atmosphere a little bit; doing the same for another hundred thousand years would be absurdly catastrophic to our ecosystem, killing and displacing billions.
You'd also need to look carefully at hydro as well, as thousand-year-old mega-dams begin to randomly fail.
Nuclear risk will probably be lower as the shockingly naive Soviet-era and 1960s-era designed reactors are all replaced with new designs built with immensely improved understanding of nuclear physics, materials design, computer augmentation, and local climatic risks.
You’re on the money, and it’s the result of things like coal and dams facing inherent technical challenges to safety and externalities, versus nuclear which primarily faces political challenges. Keeping waste rods on-site is stupid and dangerous, but it’s a consequence of people and their politicians incessant NIMBYism.
A hundred years of burning coal has damaged our atmosphere a little bit; doing the same for another hundred thousand years would be absurdly catastrophic to our ecosystem, killing and displacing billions.
You'd also need to look carefully at hydro as well, as thousand-year-old mega-dams begin to randomly fail.
Nuclear risk will probably be lower as the shockingly naive Soviet-era and 1960s-era designed reactors are all replaced with new designs built with immensely improved understanding of nuclear physics, materials design, computer augmentation, and local climatic risks.