I'm torn however, on one side its a reasonable proposal that will yield waste far far less dangerous, on the other side, it distracts from investing in renewables.
The waste produces by every reactor current in production or planed is a huge problem that is greatly underestimated by the general population.
Sweden have for 30 years tried to figure out a way of storing the waste and still not have a finalized plan, and we have one of the best places to store it, stable bedrock with very little seismic activity....
Read more here about the plans for the Swedish storage:
http://www.skb.com
I am in favour of nuclear and I am very sad that nuclear progress has stopped during so many years. But, I completely agree with you. Trying to revive nuclear is a fight of the past that distract from investing in long term solutions. IMHO, the long term source of energy is solar.
A mix makes sense. Why use only one solution? Just PV? there are so many more ways we can take advantage and maximize our resource use. A blended solution gives us much better ways to optimize our inputs and outputs.
wind is very quickly limited. hydroelectricity is already almost at its max. fossil is ecologically catastrophic. We do not know yet how to recover from past pollution. Nuclear is the cleaner, but accidents are unavoidable.
I'm torn however, on one side its a reasonable proposal that will yield waste far far less dangerous, on the other side, it distracts from investing in renewables.
The waste produces by every reactor current in production or planed is a huge problem that is greatly underestimated by the general population.
Sweden have for 30 years tried to figure out a way of storing the waste and still not have a finalized plan, and we have one of the best places to store it, stable bedrock with very little seismic activity....
Read more here about the plans for the Swedish storage: http://www.skb.com