this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
162 points (98.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43940 readers
467 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why does energy have to be scarce?
Anyway, reusing metal and glass containers seems like a straightforward plan.
Barring a major technological breakthrough, all current means of energy generation have significant environmental drawbacks. Even among the "renewable" energy generation there's problems: hydroelectric destroys river ecosystems, nuclear produces radioactive waste, solar and battery systems require mined materials (and become toxic waste at the end of their lifecycles), wind turbines kill hundreds of thousands of birds and bats annually, etc. Meanwhile rather than solving environmental and climate problems at their sources, we're relying more heavily on powered solutions, from electric vehicles to de-carbonization systems, while also needing to use more electricity to combat the ill-effects of climate change (e.g. more air conditioning in the face of warming summers). If we're gonna start turning the boat around on environmental issues we need to dramatically reduce our energy consumption as a society. Instead we're mining bitcoin and barrelling headfirst into an AI "revolution"...
Nuclear, deep-well geothermal, and concentrated solar are all good, low-impact thermal power options. We should always be improving energy efficiency, but I just don't see why we have to reduce energy consumption so much that we can't have reusable metal and glass containers anymore.
Radioactive waste is not nearly as significant a problem as has been drilled into our heads. All that waste is dangerous precisely because it is so energetic.
"Fast" reactors reprocess and burn "spent" fuel rods and other high-level waste, leaving only low-level waste with half-lives measured in weeks and months. This low-level waste stabilizes (becomes less radioactive than a banana) in decades, not millennia.
A sufficiently large, sufficiently expensive stockpile of high level waste from low-efficiency reactors provides a hell of an incentive to build fast reactors.
Okay, but even in an efficient system there's still a waste product. My point wasn't to compare-and-contrast trade-offs, simply to acknowledge that every form of energy generation has them to some degree. Plus nuclear still requires a mined resource, and again, mining is an environmentally damaging activity. Just because something is better than alternatives that doesn't give it a free pass.