Mnementh said:
The point is: You have short term revenues: The energy you sell. This works for the next decades, you say 200 years, I read it is enough for the next 90 years with constant usage. Problem is the long term cost of radioactive waste. That's something for the next thousand years. That's only fine for short timeframes, but on the long term the costs are growing and growing. But that is something the taxpayer has to pay for. And most of it will pay the people in the future, we will pay only a little part of it. |
2 things. 1st, i am of the opinion that humans would have a tough time grinding out the next few hundred years. if we can't survive after 200 years, whatever costs after that is moot.
2nd, i believe that technology will advance to the point where the cost of dealing with this radioactive waste is very small, if we haven't actually figured out ways to turn the so-called waste into something useful. in my mind it's kind of like issuing a perpetuity bond, i.e. you pay interest on the bond forever, but after accounting for inflation, the cost eventually becomes negligible.
EDIT: on sustainability, nobody really knows if it's 90 years or 200 years. but with energy prices constantly on the upswing, exploration is bound to be more and more profitable and more and more reserves will be found. my guess, based on what i've read and some simple estimations, is that 200 years would be conservative even with expanding energy use.
the Wii is an epidemic.
