"The budget for Hanford alone is about $2.3 billion in the current fiscal year, about $1.5 billion of that going to the management and treatment of approximately 56 million gallons of radioactive liquid waste stored in underground storage tanks."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/05/0...
Ultimately, however, the core problem may be that such new reactors don't eliminate the nuclear waste that has piled up so much as transmute it. Even with a fleet of such fast reactors, nations would nonetheless require an ultimate home for radioactive waste, one reason that a 2010 M.I.T. report on spent nuclear fuel dismissed such fast reactors. Or, as Cochran puts it: "If you want to get rid of milk, don't feed it to cows."
"Do the math! 1.1 additional GT out of 36 GT emitted is only a 3% difference. This 3% value is not a typographical error. Worldwide, all those nukes made only a 3% dent in yearly CO2 production. Put another way, each of the 438 individual nuclear plants contribute less than seven thousandths of one percent to CO2 reduction[18]. That’s hardly enough to justify claims that keeping your old local nuke running is necessary to prevent the sea from rising."
Can we focus on renewables and stop trying to sell people hazardous waste that can last for millenia?
You do realize that you can't actually guarantee what will happen in 10, 20... 50 years time. Earthquakes, Tsunamis, tornados, terrorist attacks, wars, neglect, malfunction, human error...
How can you guarantee that a certain place is safe to store millions of tons of radioactive waste for thousands of years if we can't even guarantee what will happen tomorrow? We need to stop this nuclear madness!
It's pure madness that we keep on producing such hazardous waste!
And for what purpose? Cleaner energy? Nope! If you take into account the waste management needs, the Uranium mining, the risks involved and the fact that these nuclear plants have to be highly subsidized in order to keep working. Why are we still using such an obviously flawed technology?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170525141544.h...
This episode shows just how dangerous it is to have a militarized police force, behaving as if they were in a war zone. And it's also terrible that the Independent didn't focus it's reporting on the whole militarized police issue.
"Nuclear power lobbyists and their marketing firms want us to believe that humankind’s current CO2 atmospheric releases would have been much worse were it not for those 438 nukes now operating. How much worse? The World Nuclear Association industry trade group estimates that an additional 1.1 GT of CO2 would have been created in 2015 if natural gas plants supplied the electricity instead of those 438 nukes[17].
Do the math! 1.1 additional GT out of 36 GT emitted is only a 3% difference. This 3% value is not a typographical error. Worldwide, all those nukes made only a 3% dent in yearly CO2 production. Put another way, each of the 438 individual nuclear plants contribute less than seven thousandths of one percent to CO2 reduction[18]. That’s hardly enough to justify claims that keeping your old local nuke running is necessary to prevent the sea from rising." Read more:
https://fairewinds.squarespace.com/demystify//demystifying-n...
"...analyzed friendship ties among 84 subjects (ages 23 to 38) in a BUSINESS MANAGEMENT CLASS..."
Maybe if the study subjects came from some other "class", the results might have been different. Maybe the average person who enrolls in a "business management class" has a different mindset and/or the habit of concealing the way s/he feels towards others.