That is the main drawback of nuclear fission yes. But because we are currently battling climate change which appears on a much smaller time scale then the nuclear waste problem, nuclear fission is considered a "clean power source" in terms of greenhouse gasses. In comparison the tritium used in nuclear fusion has a half-life of only 12 years, which is basically nothing.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Good discussion. I just watched the video from Sweden above and seems like an ok solution with a challenging problem.
Agreed the climate change and nuclear waste are both problems. One is global, the other is local. Well clearly as long is there are no major accidents that would put radiation into the atmosphere.
12 years is a long time if systems do not work 100% of the time. The checks and balances in place one day, may not exist the next. But agreed this is a shorter time scale. Interesting conversation!
Well compared to plutonium with 40k years I think 12 years is much better, but I see your point.