Funny thing though, if you look at the data, nuclear is safer than wind and solar per kWh in deaths because installers and maintainers keep falling from rooftops and wind turbines.
Comment on Exclusive: Clean tech startup Fluxnium found a way to tap 50,000 years' worth of nuclear fuel
NightFantom@slrpnk.net 5 days agoThe right time for nuclear power was decades ago, which could have offset our current carbon issues by a lot, but alas. Now is the time for solar+wind+batteries, it’s already cheaper in most places and a lot less dangerous if something goes wrong.
JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 5 days ago
NightFantom@slrpnk.net 5 days ago
Oh I’m inclined to believe that, but even ignoring Chernobyl and similar situations, fact remains that nuclear waste would pile up and create another generation’s issues. Better than oil? Absolutely. But renewables are where I’ll place my bets for a better tomorrow now.
Also in both cases we need batteries, as nuclear isn’t quick to start or stop, and peaks or drops in usage need covering, so if I’d make one wish it’s advancement in battery tech.
Ooops@feddit.org 5 days ago
Don’t let the nuclear cult hear such blasphemic facts.
halm@leminal.space 5 days ago
cultinvestorsThere, fixed that for you 🙂
Ooops@feddit.org 5 days ago
Those are to different groups, the investors into nuclear spending some money (but neglectable amounts compared to their primary investments) on desinformation campaign so idiots stay on the train, and the idiot cult created as part of those campaigns. That’s what makes such investment so efficient. Once you reached a criritcal mass the bunch of morons is self-replicating in their own echo chambers, so it doesn’t need maintenance anymore. (Also the reason nuclear is so well received in far-right circles… there isn’t actually a direct connection, but a massive overlap in how these groups are created.)
halm@leminal.space 5 days ago
Fair distinction, and a good point about broader disinformation spreading.
halm@leminal.space 5 days ago
Agreed, I just wanted to preempt any “well akshually, nuclear power is perfectly clean” discussions.
The “if something goes wrong” is certainly part of my reservations. There’s been more than one example of that happening in my lifetime, and one was too many.
Another concern is that we have no better idea to dispose of the nuclear waste than burying it really deep. That sounds like a good recipe to have it come back and bite future generations in the ass.
So yeah, clean and sustainable would mean solar/hydro/wind energy in my mind.
ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 5 days ago
Its not “just bury it underground”. Thats extremely reductionist and makes it seem far less safe than it is.
The spent uranium is not a liquid or a loose green sludge. It consists of solid, durable ceramic pellets that do not melt or dissolve easily in water. Those pellets are then sealed inside airtight tubes made of zirconium, which are then placed into massive canisters made of thick carbon steel and coated in copper. The canisters are engineered to withstand extreme pressures and resist rusting for hundreds of thousands of years.
Those canisters are then placed in underground tunnels and packed tightly with bentonite clay. If any moisture ever seeps into the tunnel, this clay absorbs it, swells up, and creates a waterproof seal that locks the canisters in place. But even then, the repository is built at least 500 meters (about 1,600 feet) underground inside exceptionally stable rock formations, such as solid granite or deep salt beds. These areas have virtually no water movement and have remained seismically quiet for millions of years
Its perfectly safe, and significantly more thought out than “just put it in the ground”