Dont touch my propaganda 😡

Indestructible cask underground is for cowards. In the US we don't have a long term storage site, so we just ship it around to different temporary sites.

Still better than coal

I understand your point. But also, not really the point. I'd rather have barrels of waste that I can point to, then to pump it into the air for everyone to breath.

The barrels are very much in our face, we need to pay attention to them. The air.. well that's someone else's problem..

I'm kind of concerned that somebody who calls himself a geologist doesn't understand radiation. The time scales involved are just not compatible. The rock is geologically inactive over the time scales that you need to store radioactive material which is at most maybe a few thousand years.

Mining shills who want to spend $10b on concrete manufacturing and uranium mines.

What makes me laugh is that we could still invest that into mining, get the resources to make solar panels and batteries, then stop because battery recycling is a thing. They can still get rich off it. They just have a set period the mining is necessary while we get the amount required. But by then they could buy the solar farms and generate infinite income from the power generation... Are they all just bad at capitalism or something?

You're right, and it's even less dangerous than you're saying.
If each gram was emitting a few sextillion gamma rays per second you'd be able to harness it as a power source, it would be producing megawatts per gram (I did do the math!). The rate of decay is years /decades per atom. One gram of Plutonium 239 would only give off a few hundred thousand gamma particles per second near the start of its decay.
Sorry if this comes off as me correcting you, I just read your comment and got curious so I did some calculations and wanted to share. If anything, I'm extra-agreeing with you.

Just the lead in gasoline kills around 5 million people a year. That is just scratching the surface of the problems oil and gas cause.

I'm not pro nuclear but I agree that decommissioning existing nuclear plants to replace them with coal+gas is ridiculous. Totally backwards.

Solar+storage>nuclear>hydrocarbons

First replace the hydrocarbons, then you can think about replacing nuclear.

Nuclear is only safe under the constant management of a stable global society.

Fossil fuels aren't safe even with constant management and a stable global society.

That feels kind of all-or-nothing. Environmental issues are part of the problem destabilizing societies. Overall, the poisoning of the environment is much worse and much less contained with fossil fuels than with nuclear power. Distant future societies might have no knowledge of nuclear storage sites and a few people might even die before they realize they need to stop breaking into the underground barrels. But a lot more people will die from the environmental havoc that we're causing with fossil fuels. And they can't just stay away from the barrels to avoid that one.

Just to be clear, I think wind and solar (and geothermal where appropriate) are the best ways to get off of fossil fuels. They've gotten a lot cheaper than nuclear so it doesn't make much sense to build new reactors. But it also doesn't make much sense to shut them down if nuclear waste is the only issue.

...O ...K ... nothing is going to destabilize global society as badly as the collapse of crop growing cycles due to fossil-fuel-induced climate change.

Anything we can do to reduce burning fossil fuels is going to improve global stability.

Not really, no. It is safe pretty much regardless. On-site caskets are bomb proof and contain waste safe enough that it wouldn't make sense for a dirty bomb. Though if you really care then we can just stop considering mountains sacred and instead starting burying the waste as we have planned and fully considered all pros and cons towards 70 years ago.

fossil fuels aren't safe no matter the state of global society