4737
Comments (438)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
11
BillionsAndBillions 11 points ago +11 / -0

No, no. Even though we could never exhaust the world's supply of Uranium, it's not technically renewable, so we cannot even consider fusion much less fission solutions. But don't worry, the government will declare we must be 100% renewable by 2035, so everything will work out if we just believe in our hearts it will.

1
Pedeville 1 point ago +2 / -1

Why not just put all the waste into rockets and fire them into the sun? Will just get evaporated

2
Racerspuff 2 points ago +2 / -0

Or just drop it into the Mariana Trench, very low energy expenditure, very solid disposal. But it might kill some super rare creature.

2
TheWiseBuffalo 2 points ago +2 / -0

Waste of energy and resources :/

1
Libertysheimdall1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because rockets have a rather ... troubling safety record?

1
StaffordH 1 point ago +1 / -0

Also, it takes a lot of thrust to head towards the sun.

1
BillionsAndBillions 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, fusion has no byproducts to dispose of, and we're officially speaking "really close" to having compact fusion reactors already.

1
pseudosapient 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, fusion has no byproducts to dispose of,

Fusion has a silly-high neutron flux, unfortunately. Aneutronic fusion... good luck with that.

Fission - decent fission cycles, not the silly strawman that people like to bring up ("once-through" and the like) - actually has less byproducts than fusion. It's the 'chop one twig off of a tree and burn it then call the rest waste'-style approaches that are terrible.