Radioactive decay is measured in 1,000's of years. Most SNF waste is currently stored at existing or non-operational generation plant's interim storage. There really is no long term storage plan in the USA. Yucca Mountain, NV has been discussed but is not the final answer, neither is the WIPP site in Carlsbad, NM. I'm not opposed to Nuclear as part of an entire comprehensive energy plan, but going single source is never a good plan.The last new plant to come online was in 2016 in Tennessee, before that was in 1996. I work in Energy Steve. I have an informed opinion. I have dealt directly with the NRC on several occasions. They are almost as bad as dealing with the Bureau of Reclamation and just as backwards. https://fas.org/sgp/...uke/IF11201.pdf
Good! You are surely in a tiny minority of people who know anything beyond what they hear from their favorite celebrity and news outlet. Although “I work in Energy” isn’t very specific, are you the Energizer Bunny when not at home?
I don’t recall anything about wanting nukes, or anything else, as a single source of energy, so why inject that as if someone has proposed it? Counterproductive.
Of COURSE there’s no comprehensive plan for dealing with nuclear waste, nukes have been in the crosshairs for decades and anything that suggests support for it of any kind is socially verboten. Meanwhile people seem willing to pour endless sums of public money into almost anything “green” on the chance that it will pan out, perhaps it’s time to lift the artificial stigma off nukes and take a modern look at what is by FAR, by multiple orders of magnitude, the most resource efficient means of generating clean power. At least give it a fair shake. Yes there are issues but few, very very few of the people dead set against nukes have even the slightest understanding of them or the real risks and benefits compared to alternatives on a scale required to eliminate them and fossil fuels. We need a very small but very safe place for nuclear waste. Do you know what percentage of available land would be required to replace them and fossil fuels with wind and solar farms? Any idea what all the environmental impacts of that would be, how long they last and what we do with endless square miles of those when they need replacing? You will NEVER hear those little problems mentioned by zealots because most don’t know or want to know. It seems almost incomprehensible to me that a large and growing number of people can place the environment and therefore energy production at the top of their global crisis list and yet dismiss without hesitation the one source of “clean energy” about which we actually know the most and which massively outperforms every other known option in its greenness.
It’s way past time to set aside the scare tactics of the ‘70s and ‘80s, separate facts from hype regarding prior accidents so productive lessons can be learned and acted on, and at least allow those genuine experts still willing to be heard supporting nuclear energy to present it as a fully vetted option alongside the rest as a major part of a truly sustainable green energy plan.