Comment on The world's only coal-to-nuclear reactor plant just broke ground in Wyoming
flora_explora@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
Oh wow, so even more radioactive waste that will afflict thousands of future generations and the environment for a tiny amount of produced energy now :(
Steve@startrek.website 3 weeks ago
Coal plants spread radioactive waste inti the air.
Fission plants leave a hot turd behind, but at least it can be buried in one spot out of reach instead of everyone breathing it.
flora_explora@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
Yeah sure, coal plants obviously have to go. But why not invest in sustainable energy production?
Nuclear waste cannot just be buried, unless you don’t care about polluting huge areas with radioactivity. In Germany, there have been decades long debates where to store nuclear waste and even to this day there hasn’t been found a good storage for the waste we produced in the 70ies. And this shit costs billions of euros that the company profiting of the plant doesn’t have to pay but that in turn society has to pay.
Cube6392@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
Wyoming is investing heavily in wind even with the understanding that current turbine designs ultimately cost money to repair and operate as opposed to being a solution that pays for itself. The conversion of a coal plant to nuclear is part of a long term strategy to reduce environmental impact. They’re taking a long view approach that solar and wind can’t in the short term do what they need it to do but that continued use of coal, at all, even just for the short term, is untenable. Meanwhile, Wyoming is ALSO investing in research on using nuclear byproducts to generate electricity. I have a lot of complaints about Wyoming and how chill they are with the alt-right but I have to commend them that their energy strategy for their state basically reflects what we all need to be doing
infinitevalence@discuss.online 3 weeks ago
That is simply not true, storage is a solved problem, and the reason for not having locations is a political problem. NIMBY (Not in my back yard) keeps the world from having permanent storage locations, not science.
flora_explora@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
Can you show me any evidence for that? I’m really curious how we could develop a technology to safely store nuclear waste for millions of years. I mean, on that time scale you’d even factor in changes in geology and all kinds of other factors. Sure, there are definitely people who say that “it should be fine”. But how can you reliably model geology on that time scale? You simply cannot. So I would definitely disagree with your statement that storage is a solved problem.
Steve@startrek.website 3 weeks ago
I see fission as a transitional technology, like CFL light bulbs vs LED lighting.
The transition has been struggling for 60 years for political reasons.
flora_explora@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
Yes, I get that. But I think we should just keep in mind that it is no sustainable or long-term solution. Since many people have started talking positively about nuclear energy in the last few years, I think it is important to remind everyone of the problems that arise with it.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 weeks ago
It is a lot harder to get wind to turn a coal power plant turbine.
infinitevalence@discuss.online 3 weeks ago
You forgot all the heavy metals too! Lots of brutal heavy metals in coal emissions and waste, which we dont get even in low level fission waste.