• Turun@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah, it’s safer than coal, on the same level as solar and wind. But it’s fucking expensive to achieve that equality! You can build 5 times the solar or wind capacity for the same price!

    • Suzune@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      The problem is the waste. Germany has radioactive waste and it couldn’t find a suitable place to deposit it for over 30 years. I think it’s still somewhere on rails or in temporary storages. It’s horrible and they don’t want to collect more of it.

      Here is more about the problem that no one talks about: https://youtu.be/uU3kLBo_ruo

      • Pietson@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        6 months ago

        Nuclear waste is a potential issue. Fossil fuel waste is a major issue right now.

        The fact that the waste for nuclear is entirely contained is very good. It allows us to place it in permanent storage location like the one in Finland from your video, and perhaps even launch it off the planet in one or two centuries. There is no containing co2, only reducing.

        • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          Putting highly radioactive waste on a rocket is a bad, bad idea.

          And guess what: solar and wind have neither CO2 nor nuclear waste as a product, and are cheaper to build and operate as well. Nuclear is comically expensive, and only gets by with massive state subsidies

          • TheOtherThyme@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            6 months ago

            And guess what: solar and wind canot take care of base load. Only oil, gas, coal, or nuclear can be run 24-7 with varying output in response to demand. Choose one.

            • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              All of that is a solvable problem. We need to modernize the energy grid, because over large distances surplus and demand more easily equalize. Domestic energy consumption is fairly easy to cover with renewables and small to intermediate scale energy storage. The big consumers are heavy industry, and most of that can easily adapt by only running when there’s a surplus. With how cheap renewables are, they’d likely even save money in such a scenario

            • Forester@yiffit.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Sir, this is an emotional argument. Begone with your facts and logic.

                • Forester@yiffit.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Pumped hydro storage requires massive dams to be constructed and massive amounts of habitat to be turned into artificial lakes. Also, we literally don’t have enough water for that to be viable anywhere but the coasts

    • TwoCubed@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      This safety comes at a cost, literally. It’s fucking insanely expensive to keep it safe. Yet it can and has failed. Also, fissile material needs to come from somewhere. Guess where that is? Also, how much of it is still available? Nah, fuck nuclear power.

      • DdCno1@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yup. A significant amount of the fissile material in Europe used to come out of Russia. France, who is commonly held up as the arch-defender of nuclear power, is now fighting basically colonial wars in Africa for this stuff. There’s a finite amount of it, it’s costly to extract, costly to refine, costly to transport. Even before you’ve generated a single kilowatt of power, you’ve already done a lot of damage to the environment just for the fuel.

        • Forester@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Gee whiz, I wonder what’s worse for the environment open pit strip mining entire mountains for coal or a few smaller mines targeting uranium deposits. As for thorium, we don’t even need to mine it. It’s fucking everywhere.

      • ghostblackout@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I don’t really like new YouTube front ends I just use youtube revanced but I don’t care if people use other stuff I’m just like a arch user telling you I use arch but I tell it to you nicely and dont force it on you Before people say hey this is a bot I know