My impression is that nuclear waste isnt dealt with hardly at all, especially in the US. https://www.energy.gov/em/cleanup-sites shows what seem like a dozen sites where negative externalities aren't at all priced in, where the government has had to cope. The US hasn't a single viable plan for nuclear waste, as far as I can tell.
And what of other nations? Setting this image out there that nuclear power is great & easy, even though so few have actually figured it out; that seems like a danger.
Virtually all of these are nuclear weapons sites, not civilian power sites. A quick skim shows that the contamination in many of them has to do with producing plutonium, which current power reactors do not even use.
"Nuclear waste" is only a problem because we don't build new reactor designs that use the "waste" of existing reactors as fuel. One of the best arguments for building new reactors is to get rid of it so nobody has to try to store it for thousands of years like a chump.
My impression is that nuclear waste isnt dealt with hardly at all, especially in the US. https://www.energy.gov/em/cleanup-sites shows what seem like a dozen sites where negative externalities aren't at all priced in, where the government has had to cope. The US hasn't a single viable plan for nuclear waste, as far as I can tell.
And what of other nations? Setting this image out there that nuclear power is great & easy, even though so few have actually figured it out; that seems like a danger.