2195
submitted 1 year ago by sv1sjp@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Astrealix@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Honestly, if you can, hydro is brilliant. Not many places can though — both because of geography and politics. Nuclear is better than a lot of the alternatives and shouldn't be discounted.

[-] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago
[-] Astrealix@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Which each have their drawbacks. Just as an example, though not representative of the majority, what do you do about months of no sun in the Arctic Circle for solar power? There is no single solution to this problem. Nuclear is better than fossil fuels by far, and we should not just throw it away out of fear.

[-] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago
[-] Astrealix@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

And yet nuclear has killed less than even wind. Obviously death is not the only factor, which is why it should be a combination of both.

Again, it's just an example. There are loads of situations where solar and wind just don't work — and they are both inconsistent, without battery technology nearly good enough to work on the order of days for an entire national grid, which could be potentially needed in the event of a storm.

Nuclear waste is a problem, but one which is much more easily contained and much less dangerous than the CO2 that's constantly being spewed into our air.

[-] EMPig@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

And what do YOU know about radioactive waste disposal?

[-] Astrealix@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

I know it's a damn lot easier than carbon recapture, if we're talking waste products. It's not ideal, but there is no such thing as perfect, and we shouldn't let that be the enemy of good. Nuclear fission power is part of a large group of methods to help us switch off fossil fuels.

[-] EMPig@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

"Easier"? Are you aware of the fact that radioactive waste tombs are meant to stand for millions of years? It requres a lot of territory, construction and servance charges, and lots of prays for nothing destructive happens with it in its "infinite" lifetime.

[-] Astrealix@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Have you tried capturing gas? As difficult as radioactive waste tombs are, they're easier than containing a specific type of air lol.

[-] radiosimian@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

We can bury it in the ground and it will literally turn into lead. How are you doing with carbon emissions? Got a fix?

[-] EMPig@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I think it's photosynthesis. 'Bury in the ground' is an extreme simplification btw. Also, I am finished with this topic scince long anough. It feels politically biased. If you'd like to reply, I'd hear it gladly. But I m not going to be involved into a discussion.

[-] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Launch it into the sun or Florida

Launching radioactive waste into space is a terrible idea, because rockets on occasion crash. Once that happens it becomes a nuclear disaster.

Instead we can safely store it in depleted mines.

[-] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Mines fill up with water if they're not constantly pumped out. Even the salt mines which seemed like a solution were found to have this issue

[-] Harrison@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago

Big hole in the side of mountain in a desert, stick the waste in, full it with rubble and concrete, job done. If some primatives in a hundred thousand years stumble across it and dig it out, fuck em, who cares.

[-] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Dig a hole, anywhere, now leave. What will the hole eventually fill up with?

[-] Harrison@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago

The pyramids have chambers that were unopened for over four thousand years, bone dry inside. Pick an area with very little rainfall, surround it with rock and the problem will stop existing on human timescales.

[-] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Dig a hole, anywhere, there's a chance it'll fill with water. Especially with climate change. We're seeing moisture getting dropped in areas at greater frequencies that didn't happen decades ago. There's no guarantee you can dig a hole anywhere on earth that wouldn't become apart of our aquifers as the water travels back to the ocean.

[-] p1mrx@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Sealing a deep narrow borehole isn't a difficult problem. The Earth has contained oil and gas underground for millions of years.

[-] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Its contained it using geological features but once exposed how is it possible to recreate that. Its also not like this material is goo

[-] p1mrx@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

The hole would be 0.5m wide and >1000m deep, backfilled with bentonite clay and concrete. At the bottom, the path curves back upward, so waste is not stored at the bottom.

Even if geology doesn't collapse the hole, it's hard to imagine material climbing up through 1000m of clogged pipe.

There is no guarantee of anything.

But if you're storing it hundreds of miles from the ocean, the risk is minimal.

[-] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It isn't really minimal since the water cycle on earth is all connected.

Water in the ocean evaporates. It's carries inland by Hadley cells that deposit the moisture inland. It gets dumped on the highest points which all run back the ocean and creating all our aquifers along the way. Those aquifers feed our great lakes and wells.

But you're suggesting we bury toxic material that remains toxic for hundreds or thousands of years somewhere remote that would just be high up in that water cycle. In places where private companies would be out of the eyes of watchdog groups

that would just be high up in that water cycle. In places where private companies would be out of the eyes of watchdog groups

That is not what I am suggesting.

this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2195 points (94.2% liked)

World News

38965 readers
2223 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