this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2162 points (94.2% liked)

World News

39142 readers
2958 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13esq@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A coal power station belches far more radioactive contaminants in to the atmosphere than any nuclear power station.

Wind and solar aren't ready, that's the whole point! They're great when it's windy and sunny, but useless when it's still and night time. Until mass power storage is a solved problem, wind and solar are unable to provide the base load power that can be provided by fossil fuel/nuclear power stations needed by advanced nations.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To preface, i dont support coal at all, its way worse than nuclear.

If i remember right, the coal thing was measuring radioactivity in the air around coal and power plants. Thats not the nuclear waste im talking about. Spent nuclear fuel is dangerously radioactively for longer than the whole of human civilization. It puts plastic's lifespan to shame. Its no where on the scale of volume as fossil fuel waste, but pound for pound i believe it is the worst substance we can produce.

If you remind me later today ill explain how energy storage is easily solvable, itll take longer than i have now

[–] 13esq@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you don't mind radioactivity in the air you breathe around the power stations, but when it's buried deep inside a mountain it bothers you?

[–] blazera@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The air radiation thing is misleading, saying the area around coal plants is more radioactive than nuclear plants isnt saying anything, because the air around nuclear plants isnt radioactive.

Most US nuclear waste isnt buried, because we dont have anywhere ready to. Its stuck in on site storage. It might be safely stored for now, but that waste is gonna accumulate like nothing before because of how crazy long it remains dangerously radioactive. Nuclear waste produced 10000 years from now is still gonna be competing with nuclear waste produced today for room to be safely stored.

[–] less_beauty@mas.to 1 points 1 year ago

@blazera @sv1sjp @13esq
The company Moltex Energy claims they can “recycle waste from existing nuclear power stations, and use it to produce more clean energy”. If true it could solve several problems at once.
https://www.moltexenergy.com

[–] osma@mas.to 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@blazera
@dilmandila
Inaccurate. To take it back to basics:

Radioactive material radiates, because it decays. The more it radiates, the faster it decays. The highest level radioactive material from nuclear fission reactors has half-life measured in decades (30 years), that is, half of it will decay in that time. It does NOT take thousands of years. Conversely, the long-lived isotopes radiate much less, thus are easier to store and process.

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html

[–] blazera@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I dont think you read your source quite right. The classification for high level waste is the most radioactive spent fuel, but it is absolutely not safe after a few decades, it decays into still dangerously radioactive isotopes. Maybe you read the part about the dry casques being rated for 40 years but keep reading. They are a temporary solution, and the waste still needs to be buried for tens of thousands of years. Which is a big problem right now because, from your source

At this time there are no facilities for permanent disposal of high-level waste.

[–] osma@mas.to 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@blazera
I did not say it was safe, I said after a few decades is far easier to process. It does not remain "crazy" high radioactive for thousands of years - that is pure hyperbole. The chart attached illustrates radiotoxicity if ingested - and no one advises anyone to eat nuclear waste.

Ps. There is a country which has solved long term storage. Guess where I live.
Source: https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/587853#
@dilmandila

[–] blazera@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

And what you said was still wrong, it still remains dangerously radioactive, and must be stored for tens of thousands of years. Like, youre not gonna find me a source saying this shit doesnt need to be stored for tens of thousands of years.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Alright its later today so heres how renewable energy as a baseline supply works. We actually already have a working example of it, hydro electric. Renewable energy thats used as baseline. When you think energy storage i think most people think of batteries, but theyre mostly suited for mobile energy storage, like cars and handheld devices. For utility power we have much more scalable, and simpler energy storage. For hydroelectric, they take excess electricity generated, and power pumps to pump the water back uphill, to use for later demand. Its physical energy storage. You can power a motor to lift a weight and pulley system with excess energy, then run it in reverse as a generator for demand. This is basic engineering, and its as scalable as you need it.

[–] 13esq@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I understand pumped storage well. The problem with it is the required size of the reservoirs and the availability of suitable locations.

Pumped storage as it stands in the UK is really very useful for managing dips and spikes in power demand but unfortunately far, far short of being able to get us through a day or two of no wind.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right, pumped storage hydro electric was an example of renewable electricity being baseline load. I gave a different suggestion for wind and solar storage if you dont have a good location for pumped storage.

[–] 13esq@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I honestly think the weight lifting and dropping idea is pipe dream stuff. It's good on a black board but near impossible to implement practically in real life.

Can you imagine how much stored weight we'd need to cover the energy demands of a nation given a few days of no wind?

You need to ask yourself why, if these ideas are so great, have they not already been implemented.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh god lifting and dropping a weight near impossible to implement? You cant mean that, you cant be that simple minded that you cant imagine an electric motor winding a chain hooked up to a pulley lifting a stone block. What part of this process is unfathomable for you?

It is already implemented, i gave you an example of it being implemented, its an everyday fact of life that we use electricity to lift enough weight uphill to cover times of demand surpassing immediate supply for massive regions.

[–] 13esq@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If we're going to talk to eachother like we're cunts;

I wish I could return to a time where I was so naive, the world was a magical place!

I'll ask again since you avoided the question. Do you have any idea how much lifted weight would be required to power a nation through a few days of no wind?!

Hint: A metric shit tonne would not even be a scratch on the required amount. Where are you going to source that sort of weight, leave alone infrastructure required to repeatedly lift and lower it?

I'll tell you once again, I'm well aware of hydro pumped storage, its abilities and its short comings. I work as an electrician on a hydro scheme, FFS, you dumb twat.

A weight you could lift and drop to power your own house alone through a few days of no power in itself would be an extremely impressive system and you want to power every house in the nation and all its industry with that concept? It's time to get a grip on reality and share what ever drug you're on with me because its obviously some really good shit.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I will reiterate, that it is an amount of weight lifted that we already achieve, everyday to power entire utility areas. And Im tired of these strawmen. You know what would be an even more impressive feat? Building a nuclear plant to power your own house alone. Building one power plant to power the entire nation, from any source. We're not building to power one home, we're not building to power the entire nation at once.