Aiden,

"waste correctly disposed of...." There is no such thing. How long do people keep going?

Then, nuclear waste is different? Why? I could argue the same as above, that it is "correctly disposed of".

Tell that to the people affected, who are opposing nuclear waste dumps in Australia.

Waste is terrible. You could argue some food waste is different, like say food peels, inedible parts from fruit/vegetables etc, but overall consumer driven waste is not justified, regardless of any benefits to others, including myself.

Don't cherry pick!

It's absolutely disgusting!

There is just so much rubbish in Australia it is ridiculous!

All that discourse from Hasbeen, pseudo-mouth, psycho runner, pseudo-individual, Bazz, pseudo-Josephus, and the list goes on ............ Oh, and let's not forget shadyminister!

Nathan J, nuclear waste is VERY compact and can be reprocessed through
more reactors and further reduce its radio activity while generating more energy.
I have held a piece of depleted uranium in my hand and
I do not glow in the dark. It was very heavy though !
Ultimately everyone who objects to nuclear energy will just have
to change their mind as wind & solar fail.
Of course fusion may save us all in 60 years time.

As an aside, a study found if the US went wind & solar only, due to
the mtbf of solar panels they would need maintenance teams to change
100,000 panels a day ! Now that's what I call waste.
Whoops, mtbf = mean time between failures

NathanJ,
> "waste correctly disposed of...." There is no such thing.
What a ridiculous claim! Waste that is recycled, or even that which goes into landfills, doesn't go into our rivers and oceans. It doesn't cause the environmental problems that non biodegradable litter does, and your failure to make a distinction is quite a serious cognitive deficiency on your part.

> How long do people keep going?
As long as you like.

>Then, nuclear waste is different? Why?
Because the quantities involved are small, the dangers are well recognised and nowadays the producers of it are very careful to ensure it doesn't escape into the environment. And recycling it typically creates more waste than there was to start with.

>I could argue the same as above, that it is "correctly disposed of".
Indeed, the need for correct disposal is pretty near universally recognised.

>Tell that to the people affected, who are opposing nuclear waste dumps in Australia.
Unfortunately the botched cleanup of Maralinga gave the people good reason to be suspicious.

>Waste is terrible.
Not intrinsically. It's only terrible when it has terrible effects.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
The idea that wind and solar are set to fail is fanciful. There will be occasional failures, just as there are with fossil fuel plants, but there are no huge problems with reliability, and reliability's only likely to increase as they learn from early mistakes.