Chernobyl, Fukushima. 3% of nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant is high level:
High-level wastes can remain highly radioactive for thousands of years. They need to be disposed of deep underground in engineered facilities built in stable geological formations. While no such facilities for high-level wastes currently operate, their feasibility has been demonstrated and there are several countries now in the process of designing and constructing them.
90% of the waste is "low level" and it is simply buried. Poisoning Mother Earth, our very soil and groundwater, for a cheap electric bill.
This stuff is deadly. A meltdown would equally be deadly and render the area uninhabitable for decades, at least (if Chernobyl is any indication).
Personally, even though it is risky, I don't object to continuing to use it. I object to using it MORE instead of turning to more responsible alternatives. We only have one planet. Poison it too much and we're screwed. Being responsible for killing half the human population is bad; being responsible for making our planet uninhabitable is AWFUL. I don't want to be part of the jamoke generation that chooses that.
Chernobyl was a 1 off design that was never used anywhere else.
And Fukishima was poorly placed in an earthquake prone area
You do know that France has been generating almost 80% of their electricity from nuclear power for then past 30 plus years don't you?
So where are all your disaster stories from France? in one sentence you say technology is getting better all the time but in the next you say that nuclear power can never get safer?
Next generation reactors can be buried underground, they run at atmosphere not under pressure like the old light water plants. They can use the nuclear waste we have sitting around for fuel. They can be built off site and shipped by rail. They are incapable of melting down or overheating.
One 50 MW reactor will power a small town for up to 30 years without being refueled.
