• viking@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not at all, but long term storage of exhausted nuclear rods still costs an unknown amount of money endless centuries into the future. So you can’t really put a number on the final bill.

      • realitista@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Some types of reactors can also use those waste products as fuel and in turn make them into other waste products that only last a couple hundred years, so it’s not a easy calculation to make unless you know what’s deployed in the future.

        • viking@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That has been suggested for decades, problem is that if any of the transporters blow up on their way to space, you essentially have a dirty bomb covering half the planet. No bueno.

    • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was usually old-style (insecure) and expensive, covered with hidden funding, or new tech (somewhat secure) and even more expensive.