Comment on Not a single one

lemonhead2@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• fullsquare@awful.systems ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  the man who decided to end german nuclear power production getting a seat in gazprom doesn’t inspire confidence in reality-based discussion of this subject

  source

  • Ephera@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    It was decided after Fukushima under Merkel.

    source
• CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island. Plus uranium is another non-renewable resource.

  I’m still pro nuke as getting off fossil fuels is of the utmost urgency, but we will have to learn to live off wind and solar.

  source

  • jerkface@lemmy.ca ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    So what has released more waste into the world, all the nukes including those, or the equivalent mega-wattage of all other human power generation? Dunno if you noticed but our future climate is FUCKED to the tune of hundreds of trillions of dollars, while meanwhile very few of us are suffering from the effects of nuclear power genenration.

    source

    • kibiz0r@midwest.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      The question was “why is public sentiment so against nuclear?” and they answered, with a note that they personally support it over fossil fuels.

      source
  • DahGangalang@infosec.pub ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Ideally we figure out some sweet Nuclear Fusion.

    source

    • LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Ah yes, the Fusion Reactors that are coming soon ™ (promised decades ago).

      We need energy now, not at some unknown point in the future. Of course, resaeching this technology may make sense. But it does not help today and also not the next 20 years.

      source

      • DahGangalang@infosec.pub ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Yeah, putting your hopes / goals on a fusion powered future is foolish at this point.

        But I def support (lots of) research into it.

        source
      • hayvan@piefed.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Cold fusion has been 10 years away since early 1960s.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Gladaed@feddit.org ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Having become a carbon neutral economy a couple years ago since we obviously adhere to the Paris agreement this does not seem like a good solution as we already (would have to have) deployed solutions based on current technology.

      source

      • DahGangalang@infosec.pub ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Agree that we can get to carbon neutral / carbon negative with current tech.

        I do think making plans based on having it are foolish at best.

        But I do think we need to keep working on research of it. If we ever hope to achieve a world with “electricity too cheap to meter”, nuclear fusion is the key to it. (That and dyson spheres, but that’s kinda not in scope of discussion).

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I’d love to see a full production chain breakdown of disasters and their costs to clean up, for both fossil fuel and nuclear.

    Most people’s issue is “ooh scary radiation!” without realizing you get more exposure to ionizing radiation by living near a coal fired power plant than a nuclear one. Fuck, you can take a swim in the reactor pool and if you’re under the surface away from the nuclear material, the water above you blocks the background radiation you’d be exposed to walking around on the surface.

    source
• einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Because it only makes sense if you also need to run nuclear Submarines with ICBMs on them.

  Basically Nuclear power has always been a military project thats just “Dual use” to offset the cost by having tax payers foot the bill for civilians plants.

  Doing that makes the whole supply chain cheaper for the Military usage…cuz mining it only for military usage only would be hella expensive and harder to justify towards the population.

  source

  • Bashnagdul@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    This is only for uranium and plutonium based nuclear power. There are others that don’t produce weapons grade byproducts. Helium 3 for instance and other versions of uranium. Also cobalt is an option.

    As long as we want to pay for power, it can be profitable, in the sense that we pay what we need and people who work there are paid fairly as well.

    source
• Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Honestly I think renewables are at a place where it doesnt really matter much anymore. My perception has been that its propaganda, but I’m not really knowledgeable on the subject

  source
• danielfm123@lemmy.zip ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  There are new kinds of nuclear power plants based on safe Torum instead of uranium, Torum is more abundant, easy to manipulate and “non explosive” china has many reactors with this technology, meanwhile people in the west world is still deciding their gender.

  source

  • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Thorium

    source