Like many proponents, I'm not claiming the problem does not exist. I do think it is minor, although not insignificant. But I think you (and in general nuclear opponents) claim that the problem is not only significant, it is a deal breaker.
Decommissioning a gigawatt scale nuclear reactor costs an average of $1 BN in the US. Holtec International specializes in this work [1].
So, I did Step 0 in your list: admitting there is a problem.
Would you mind proceeding to Step 1: admitting there is a solution?
Yes it is a solvable problem that is priced so far at USD 0.6T just for the US and not accounting for future risks of accidental leaks (which are not rare and contained enough to dismiss them).
There other energy technologies that do not carry such costs (but they have other disadvantages).
But it is not honest to be talking about nuclear while hiding the measurable externalities it brings along.
Price things properly and let people vote with their money.
This headline/article is about cleaning up sites from the early years of nuclear experimentation/research and from nuclear weapons production.
There were various accidents and a great deal of improper (at least by modern standards) handling of materials and wastes. The cleanup being talked about here is about cleaning up that contamination.
There's no dispute from anyone on any side that I am aware of that these places are heavily contaminated, need to be cleaned up, and are complicated to clean up.
-------
This headline and the findings have absolutely nothing to do with handling nuclear waste from commercial power production or commercial nuclear reactor sites.
Oh the problem that nuclear proponents insist that does not exist.
When you point out it exists they tell you it’s minor (it all fits in baseball field is the used argument)
When you point at the real scale and the costs of cleaning up they then they proceed accusing you of not being patriotic enough.
We have been engineering solutions to tough problems forever. But step 0 is admitting that there is a problem.
Now we are at the denial stage.
I'm one of those proponents.
Like many proponents, I'm not claiming the problem does not exist. I do think it is minor, although not insignificant. But I think you (and in general nuclear opponents) claim that the problem is not only significant, it is a deal breaker.
Decommissioning a gigawatt scale nuclear reactor costs an average of $1 BN in the US. Holtec International specializes in this work [1].
So, I did Step 0 in your list: admitting there is a problem.
Would you mind proceeding to Step 1: admitting there is a solution?
[1] https://holtecinternational.com/company/divisions/hdi/
Yes it is a solvable problem that is priced so far at USD 0.6T just for the US and not accounting for future risks of accidental leaks (which are not rare and contained enough to dismiss them).
There other energy technologies that do not carry such costs (but they have other disadvantages).
But it is not honest to be talking about nuclear while hiding the measurable externalities it brings along.
Price things properly and let people vote with their money.
This headline/article is about cleaning up sites from the early years of nuclear experimentation/research and from nuclear weapons production.
There were various accidents and a great deal of improper (at least by modern standards) handling of materials and wastes. The cleanup being talked about here is about cleaning up that contamination.
There's no dispute from anyone on any side that I am aware of that these places are heavily contaminated, need to be cleaned up, and are complicated to clean up.
-------
This headline and the findings have absolutely nothing to do with handling nuclear waste from commercial power production or commercial nuclear reactor sites.
A recent discussion on another nuclear waste cleanup report: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48824826
Report titled:
> Nuclear Waste Cleanup:
> Changes Needed to Ensure DOE Is Not Prematurely Excluding Less Expensive Options for Large Projects
The DOE is too busy meme posting on facebook about how awful solar and wind is. Not surprising.