Which is much better than not kicking the can down the road, and just spewing emissions into the atmosphere like fossil fuels. Nuclear is not perfect, it’s just better than fossil fuels.
Comment on Anon wants to ride a zeppelin
Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 month agoimho “deep isolation” isn’t a solution, it’s kicking the can down the road.
Improving the power grid would increase the available supply without causing problems.
dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Why? And what would be the alternative?
Even if we don’t start relying on more nuclear power, nuclear waste is still going to be produced. Even if it’s just maintaining the nuclear power we have right now, or just dealing with an aging nuclear arms cache.
I don’t see how kicking it down the road is really a problem in this scenario, as that’s pretty much all you can do with nuclear waste, wait until it’s not dangerous.
That’s kinda a general statement… Part of improving the power grid could be interpreted as including more nuclear power.
The imperative in this scenario isn’t just making sure we’re not “causing problems”, it’s moving towards a power source that minimizes our dependence on fossil fuels.
It’s “kicking the can down the road” vs ecological collapse.
Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 month ago
So, by your own words, there’s no safe way to get rid of nuclear waste besides storing it and hoping things will work out.
Also, nuclear plants would take as long to build as other, safer methods.
TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 month ago
I think you’re purposely misconstruing the meaning of safe. I think deep isolation is a proven method of safely storing radioactive material until it decays.
You are claiming it’s unsafe, or “kicking the can down the road”, but haven’t explained your reasoning. Perhaps if you had any examples of how deep isolation has failed, or ways you think it will fail, it may strengthen your argument
Again, you are claiming things are safer, but haven’t explained how? All forms of energy production have their positive and negative attributes, however safety isn’t really a problem usually attributed to nuclear energy.
Time is generally an actual criticism of nuclear power, but a lot of length of time isn’t really inherent in the actual construction of the power plant, which can be completed in as little as 3-5 years. It’s usually the same problem as your first claim, the governments inability to deal with NIMBY campaigns and private interest.
Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Yup. No big companies campaigning to get nuclear power. Nope, nary a one.
reuters.com/…/investors-are-turning-bullish-nucle…
ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 1 month ago
I wonder what the costs would be to just literally launch it into the sun. Let it all get recompiled in the big fusion furnace and out of our hands. Of course if the rocket failed during launch you have a real big problem, but that part aside.
Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 month ago
The Space Shuttle Challenger has entered the chat.
Not sure anyone would sign off on sending potential dirty bombs into space.
A few years back people were floating the idea of sending up orbital solar farms that would collect power and beam it to the surface.
echodot@feddit.uk 1 month ago
Even if we had a magic 100% reliable rocket it still wouldn’t be a good idea to send it into space. You’d have to have a stupidly powerful magic 100% reliable rocket to get into a solar intercept orbit, otherwise it would just hang around the Earth for a very long time and eventually come back down as nuclear fire dust.
It’s not as if storing it underground is an unsafe strategy so it seems like a pointless exercise.