• Sheeprevenge@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                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

    • Hyperi0n@lemmy.film
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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?