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

World News

39142 readers
2656 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
[–] Sheeprevenge@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Nuclear is the best option. It's the cheapest when considering the energy output, most environmentally friendly, and takes up the least amount of space.

It's the most environmentally friendly, if you don't consider that it is not renewable and that there are no waste management solutions for the highly radioactive waste.

[–] escapesamsara@discuss.online 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nuclear power is exactly as renewable as solar power; and 'highly' radioactive waste is a fraction of a fraction of the waste generated, with most waste being less harmful than living within 50 miles of a coal mine, or 100 miles of a coal power plant. It's also entirely defeated by a relatively small amount of one of the most common metals on Earth. Additionally, if we were to power the entire world with just nuclear power, the amount of unusable waste generated per year globally would be smaller than a compact sedan, requiring a little less than a box-truck sized container to store it safely anywhere on the planet. It would take several tens of billions of years to accumulate to a problematic size for safe storage.

[–] Sheeprevenge@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So we build more Nuclear Power Plants, because the highly toxic waste is not "enough" to care? Where are keeping it then?

[–] escapesamsara@discuss.online 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Literally in any of the hundreds of current underground sites? It's also not highly toxic, it's radioactive. There's a pretty huge difference. Nuclear waste doesn't leech into the water cycle like the run off of broken solar panels or turbine arms.

[–] Sheeprevenge@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am in the EU. There is literally no storage for highly radioactive waste. There has been talk for years that one will be available, but so far... nothing.

Nuclear waste doesn't leech into the water cycle

That's not true. Nuclear waste can also contaminate ground water, if stored incorrectly. And as we discussed: we have no storage solution for the highly radioactive waste and thus can't store it correctly.

[–] escapesamsara@discuss.online 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am in the EU. There is literally no storage for highly radioactive waste.

Pay to store it in Finland, like everyone else is doing. They currently have a facility that isn't even a quarter full and can be heavily expanded.

That’s not true. Nuclear waste can also contaminate ground water, if stored incorrectly. And as we discussed: we have no storage solution for the highly radioactive waste and thus can’t store it correctly.

Solar panels can contaminate ground water if stored incorrectly, that's a useless statement.

And as discussed there are thousands of storage facilities available. Just because your specific economic union has not built one yet, does not mean you cannot use one of the commercial ones, and by the way these long-term storage facilities aren't the part that store the waste safely. The containers do, and short of a nuclear bomb going off the waste isn't escaping them. So much so that despite waste existing since the 1960s, there has never been an incident of nuclear waste escaping containment. Ever. Coal spillages have caused more radioactive contamination than nuclear waste.

[–] Sheeprevenge@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Pay to store it in Finland, like everyone else is doing. They currently have a facility that isn't even a quarter full and can be heavily expanded

They don't have storage for highly radioactive waste (as I said), only low to medium radioactive. A high radioactive solution is planned for years, but currently it is still not available.

Solar panels can contaminate ground water if stored incorrectly, that's a useless statement.

That's still a strawman argument. Just because I argue against nuclear power, I don't automatically believe that another solution is perfect. Also that doesn't change that the highly nuclear waste has no storage.

Just because your specific economic union has not built one yet, does not mean you cannot use one of the commercial ones

We can't use one, because there is none.

The containers do, and short of a nuclear bomb going off the waste isn't escaping them

Currently Castor Containers are used. They are designed for 40 years of storage. That's nothing compared to the time the waste has to be stored safely.

So much so that despite waste existing since the 1960s, there has never been an incident of nuclear waste escaping containment

That's also not true. We even have two new species of alligators because of containment with nuclear waste: Tritagator and Dioxinator

[–] WhiteHawk@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It not being renewable doesn't really matter when talking about its CO2 emissions. And the neat thing is, radioactive waste decays on its own so the "waste management" needed is to bury it somewhere and leave it there. It ain't that complicated.

[–] Sheeprevenge@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

It's a bit more complicated. Where are you gonna bury it? It has to be somewhere, where normally nobody is. Also you have to keep the waste containers safe (and in one piece) for a very, very long time. How are you gonna mark it that people thousands of years in the future still know that it is dangerous?

[–] Hyperi0n@lemmy.film 1 points 1 year ago

There is a giant hole in a mountain specifically for the purpose of waste disposal.