As someone who has actually looked into nuclear waste and the current storage techniques instead of relying on knee-jerk fear mongering, yes. Store it in my area. Hell, store the casks underneath my house for all I care. If you are surprised by this answer, it's because you don't know shit about nuclear waste and how little of a problem it is.

[–] MisterFrog 6 points 7 months ago

(Below is my opinion, I respect you have yours, and I'm not having a go at you. I just want to take part in the discourse friendo!)

To me, if they wanted to store it in my area by encasing it now (or, any time in like the last 40 years), I wouldn't mind either.

The issue that isn't fear-mongering that people continually overlook because of all the knee-jerking people lamenting that it's "unsafe", is that we then have to maintain containment for thousands upon thousands of years.

That's the issue, permanent storage, not all the temporary storage that is happening now.

Nuclear is not a great solution to immediately reducing emissions, in my opinion. Takes way too much capital and way too much time to get operational. Don't close still operating plants, but damn, we need to be building the fastest shit possible, right now. Not something that takes a decade to build. We have solutions ready, governments just aren't getting their act together and build it. Even if the business-case doesn't make complete sense; we don't have time.

Sand batteries, liquid air energy storage, lithium ion batteries, flow batteries, (plus a bunch of other contenders) they're all immature technologies but they do work right now, anywhere, no terrain for pumped-hydro required. Sure they're not very efficient, or have crap lifespan in the case of Li-ion, but solar plants literally aren't being built in some places because prices go negative during the day, and plants are being curtailed.

We need to build storage, now, even if it's not a silver bullet. And we can't wait for expensive-as-fuck nuclear.

Someone should call me when we decide re-enriching spent nuclear fuel is fine and we can do nuclear waste recycling, actually getting our money's worth. Or when thorium gets good.

My personal opinion conclusion:

Nuclear waste is not immediately that concerning for safety, it's the fact we're signing up to store it for longer than recorded history.
It's expensive and takes to long to build
The technology needed for the energy transition already exists
Also agree, that turning off operating nuclear doesn't make sense.

Thanks for reading, looking forward to hearing people's thoughts.