It’s a solved problem actually, it’s just a lack of political will to enact the solutions. Besides, it’s not like pollution (i.e. waste) from fossil fuels does something other than pollute. Compared to that, vitrification and interment represents a solved problem.
Do we consider a problem solved once someone has sketched out an idea, once we've seen a proof of concept, or once we've seen the idea working in production for a suitable time?
Would any of us claim we could keep data safe for 100,000 years? In my book neither that - nor "dealing with nuclear waste" - are anywhere near solved problems.
This is exactly correct. The problem is solved by dozens of paper reactors or waste storage plans that do not exist. We can develop these things and we already invest tons of money into R&D which always gets allocated stopping short of fully developing the technology. We should either quit investing into the technology on a research level or start actually developing it.
Very true, all in all “not a solved problem” is factually incorrect and, like many safety concerns, based on problems of reactors from decades in the past. Meanwhile global warming and pollution are very much present day concerns and we need to do something on a shorter timescale than wind and solar alone will allow.
I only would be careful assuming all the problems are on reactors from decades past - reactors currently in operation use decades old designs and are more often than not, decades old.
But yes, I'd take a dozen Chernobyls over a runaway greenhouse effect.
I don't think it is solved because any solution needs to be very long term, and having politicians or even much of the population care about the long term is not a solved problem.
Nuclear power gives us far too much ability to borrow from tomorrow to pay for today, same as with coal. That's why it is, in practice even if not in theory, not an adequate solution to our energy demands.
