Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?

Yeah it starts looking like a beautifull place for exactly that:) 10 or 20 thousand years shouldnt make a difference aye:)

Are you trying to make your posts look less meaningsless by dots and vague phrases? You don't have any idea of the complexity of such a power plant but you don't stop assuming things you'd like to be true. That seems incredibly naive to me.

Of course. The ones that produce it should stand in for the waste too.

Let's dump it in Wallonia :p

So you genuinely believe the process and safety precautions are still the same as in Soviet Union of 1986? That seems rather naive to me too.

Lets just assume it was a serious question. Honestly what was your 1st strong thought about it?

About what? (I'm not following you right now.)

kreator's question.

So you genuinely believe the process and safety precautions are still the same as in Soviet Union of 1986? That seems rather naive to me too.

I never said this. I just pointed out that European reactors are mainly more than 20 years old and the process and its inherent dangers can't be improved in those reactors.

That Belgium has to take care of its own nuclear waste? I said that's logic itself. For instance in Sweden, they built special rooms deep into mountains and put the waste in there (I saw a documentary about it, about a year of two ago I think).

So then you say the process and safety precautions are still the same as in the Europe of 20 years ago. How are you so sure about this?

For instance in Sweden, they built special rooms deep into mountains

Show me such a place in Belgium :))) Besides Walloon :P

Another country might be willing to take that risk in exchange for money. Nevertheless, we also have to be careful with that, but that is another story.

Wallonia is more than the half of Belgium (in km²), so that's rather unfair ;-)

Pauvres Wallons! :/

It seems they are like a second hand co-inhabitants....

Indeed. And for instance, you can do that with the EU. You search for a place with not a lot of inhabitants (for instance Siberia, Mongolia, ...) because as you said, there are still risks, the risk on a human disaster is far less in a low inhabited region. Then every country pays - based on its amount of waste - into one European organisation that takes care of the waste - and of course, pays a large amount of money to the country that is willing to place the waste.

Well, let's hope nothing happens as the floods of 1953 in the Netherlands, Belgium and England. Unfortunatly, literally know 1 can predict this, or any other natural disaster, war, terrorists, forgotten etc. Often people that have studied it think they oversee everything, but they can't, specially not because the waste (inclusive the old brokendown nuclear power stations) is a really long term problem.
So for me the problem is everything, from the moment they take this rare material out of the ground to use for energy (just 'burn' it), the proces itself as this is never ever 100% save and the storage after that for many thousants of years, and ofcourse the costs of billions and billions. And the strange thing is, we have alternatives and the money to make these alternatives work ...