BookTalk.org

Good post. Greenhouse gases are now the most talked-about hazardous waste, though it's hard for us to think about them that way. We all produce them. Contrast CO2, etc. with nuclear waste, something everyone recoils from. Which is the more dangerous, though, really? Our emotions seem to rule in favor of the greater threat (GHGs), perhaps.

I think something may have gone wrong, here. It looks like you meant to continue a previous thread, but ended up starting a new one.

As an advocate for nuclear energy use, I feel some responsibility to acknowledge concerns about nuclear waste. We used to think Antarctica might be a safe place to put the stuff, but no one would say that anymore. The long half-lives have suggested to some that we should send the waste into the sun. I'm sure I don't know the answer, but it is easier to kick that can down the road than the can of climate change.

That is strange, the OP has been dropped.

I'm reading that some studies claim to show that nukes aren't good for the climate once the total impact of construction, uranium mining, etc. are considered. It's hard to believe that they aren't comparatively better than fossils, though. Renewables are a lot safer, but what about the carbon cost of manufacture and disposal at end of service? The Dept. of energy says that one nuclear plant=3 million solar panels or 430 wind turbines. That good old energy density gives a nod to nukes.