submitted 2 months ago by einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

136 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works -5 points 2 months ago

That said I think the part concerning waste from nuclear usines is a weak argument. It’s a relatively low volume, compared with the amount of electricity generated by those usines; and mining operations will be always a mess, no matter if you’re mining uranium (for nuclear), neodymium (for wind) or gallium and iridium (for solar).

Yes, but i would argue that when you mine neodymium or gallium once you then can recycle them for ever, while the same cant be said for uranium, in the long term that does make a big difference.

[-] lvxferre@mander.xyz 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yes, but i would argue that when you mine neodymium or gallium once you then can recycle them for ever

In practice you can't. There's always going to be losses when gathering the used parts for reprocessing and during the reprocessing itself. So you'll still need to keep production up.

In the meantime you can actually reprocess nuclear fuel. It won't be forever, just like the above, but stuff like plutonium and the likes can be used for further energy production, plus this reduces the amount of high-level waste you need to deal with.

[-] einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 months ago

Yeah you can reprocess nuclear fuel, but latest information i have on that is that its nowhere close making sense cost wise and mostly theoretical, i may be wrong on that tho.

When i yeet a solar cell or electric motor into a furnace its possible to refine basically everything, sure here and there a motor in a hair dryer will hit the landfill, but for industrial Motors/Generators is very very low.