> My problem with nuclear is the lack of a solution for waste
Waste management is pretty much a solved problem [1][2]
> Some pose catastrophic risks to the communities they are stored in
"catastrophic" would have to be qualified here, and I think you are being hyperbolic, but essentially the only waste sites that have major risks are those from decades ago before we had good solutions. Nuclear is incredibly safe [3]
I think you misunderstand my criticism. It's not that vitrification can't be done, its that efforts in the US to perform it are behind schedule and woefully inadequate to process the existing waste in US in a timely manner, let alone the waste from numerous additional plants. Despite decades of pubic debate, billions spent, we still cannot agree on where to put it.
Plans to vitrify waste at Hanford are only barely reaching operation, more than a decade behind schedule. The plant won't be able to process all the waste on site when running at capacity until after 2100.
Meanwhile 56 million gallons of high grade waste is slowly seeping into the water table of the Columbia River basin.
My problem is with the lack of success in this area towards competently reducing risk and sequestering waste. It hardly seems like a solved problem when we our concrete implementation of a solution has yet to arrive.
My apologies if I misunderstood. When you said "My problem with nuclear is the lack of a solution for waste" you meant "My problem with nuclear in the US is the lack of a currently implemented solution for waste"? And the "our" in "It hardly seems like a solved problem when we our concrete implementation of a solution has yet to arrive." is referring to Americans?
It's so much a solved problem that no country other than France has a permanent solution. Meanwhile it will cost hundreds of billions if not trillions to get it done for the existing waste alone, all funded by the tax payer because the nuclear industry would just declare bankruptcy if they had to deal with it. You know you're in a world of pain when stating facts sounds like a rant.
> It's so much a solved problem that no country other than France has a permanent solution
I think it's reasonable to acknowledge the difference between "we have a solution that has been implemented in the real world" and "the solution we have has been implemented everywhere it's needed". Yes, not every country who needs proper waste management has implemented it, but I don't think that means we haven't solved the problem of what to do with waste.
Also while France has La Hague, the Netherlands also has COVRA :)
> Meanwhile it will cost hundreds of billions if not trillions to get it done for the existing waste alone
Yes, we will have to face the consequences of past choices, but I don't think that should preclude us from pushing for more modern implementations.
Waste management is pretty much a solved problem [1][2]
> Some pose catastrophic risks to the communities they are stored in
"catastrophic" would have to be qualified here, and I think you are being hyperbolic, but essentially the only waste sites that have major risks are those from decades ago before we had good solutions. Nuclear is incredibly safe [3]
1. https://twitter.com/MadiHilly/status/1550148385931513856?s=2...
2. https://twitter.com/MadiHilly/status/1552655863751421955?s=2...
3. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy