• hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    “clean energy”

    Don’t nuclear power plants produce waste which is highly problematic because it’s hazardous and radioactive? I wouldn’t call that clean. And SMRs generate even more waste than big nuclear plants.

    • BlackLaZoR@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      highly problematic because it’s hazardous and radioactive?

      Thing is, there’s very little of that waste, with much less impact than say, burning coal.

      Also, it’s highly radioactive only when taken fresh out of reactor - this waste is stored in pools, until it decays. What you’re left is weakly radioactive, long term waste that needs to be buried for a long time.

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Burying the small amount of waste in a stable non-actively forming mountain for a few thousand years is 1000x better than burning things and putting them into the air.

      • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        I’m not so sure about that. We already had to pay a lot of taxpayers’ money to fix bad issues with those storage facilities. And it’s just been a few decades with at least tens of thousands of years to go. That could become very, very expensive. And nasty to deal with for future generations.

        I’d say just burying your waste where no one can see it isn’t a good solution. Neither is just dumping it into the ocean. And knowing a worse alternative doesn’t make it right.

        You’re correct, burning yet more oil and coal and putting that CO2 into the atmosphere isn’t a viable option either. That’d ruin the climate and be unhealthy for us.

        • emax_gomax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          If the choice is spend more to hold onto the byproducts or let the byproducts slowly make the entire earth uninhabitable I’m kinda in favour of the former. Ideally completely green energy would be preferred but I guess it just doesn’t scale well with consumer demands and patterns :/.

          • itslilith
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 minutes ago

            It does, and it’s cheaper and faster to implement. Solar and wind are dirt cheap. Storage has long been the bottleneck, but we’ve made gargantuan progress in scalable battery technology (sodium batteries, for example).

            A green grid would also help distribute energy production closer to where people live, and reduce single points of failure. It goes to increase grid resilience and reduce dependence on a few large energy corporations.

            Nuclear was a useful technology, and likely safer than coal. But anyone pushing for nuclear (over 100% renewables) nowadays is helping uphold the status quo of centralized energy production in the hands of a a few rich capitalists.