• drolex
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Nuclear energy is not clean. Less CO2 intensive, maybe, but definitely not clean. It might be good in the short term but the long term looks grim regarding nuclear waste, among other issues.

      • drolex
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        7 months ago

        That is my point.

          • drolex
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            7 months ago

            Yes and you didn’t bring up that oil is not clean either?

              • drolex
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                7 months ago

                What? No. I was merely putting in perspective that nuclear energy is not a magic thing that will solve everything.

                • stormdelay@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  It’s not magic, but it has advantages that are hard to beat in terms of resource usage. Renewables also have advantages, but you can’t handwave away their own problems and limitations anymore than you can do so for nuclear energy.

    • mholiv@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yah but we can manage Nuclear waste. We can’t manage runaway climate change. CO2 is the enemy.

            • mholiv@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              That’s the model. Poland and other countries can build similar projects. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

              • woelkchen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                7 months ago

                Poland and other countries can build similar projects.

                They don’t. Therefore it’s not managed.

                Are you being intentionally obtuse?

                Your need to lash out with personal attacks shows that you know that your argument holds no water.

                • mholiv@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  My argument is that we CAN manage nuclear waste. That facility shows that we CAN. Poland CAN build such a facility. Ergo we CAN.

                  More importantly we CANNOT manage CO2.

                  I asked if you were being intentionally obtuse because you tried to reframe my argument as we ARE managing nuclear waste in all places properly. Everyone knows we are not. But the good news is that we can.

                  • woelkchen@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    That facility shows that we CAN.

                    Nobody has ever successfully managed nuclear waste for 100,000 years. All you CAN do is make baseless claims and lash out with insults.

            • mholiv@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Yes CO2 is the existential threat. Even in socialist countries CO2 is produced.

              Economic systems and forms of production do not make energy sources clean. Socialist and capitalist countries both ought to and must fight against CO2 production.

              • solo@kbin.earth
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Socialist countries? Of course definitions vary, so which ones are you referring to?

                Also neo-libs don’t want any state interference on business, unless it involves bailing them out with tones of money. So which capitalist country will do otherwise with so much lobbying going on?

                  • solo@kbin.earth
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Your answer is a conversation stopper and I will respect that.

        • drolex
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          We hide it under the carpet and future generations will deal with it. This strategy has worked superbly for climate change.

    • sparkle@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      The US produces less than half the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool of nuclear waste per year in total, so it’s not exactly hard to manage. Wind and even solar take up a lot more space than nuclear for the same energy, even if we were to consider decades worth of nuclear waste storage. Nuclear power production has about 130x higher density than wind, and needs 34x less space than solar PV.

      And that’s considering that the US doesn’t even use their used nuclear fuel efficiently like, say, France. 96% of French nuclear fuel is recycled by them, while the US doesn’t really recycle their nuclear fuel. Thanks to free market capitalism fuel recycling never got commercialized in the US, so the over of century of usable fuel we have in recyclable nuclear fuel is just wasted. It’s cheaper to just buy new fuel rather than recycle, so of course companies don’t recycle. American problems I guess.

      If space were a big issue than nuclear would still win by a long shot even over the long-term. There’s very little of it produced, it doesn’t take up much space to properly and safely store for tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and the power production is extremely reliable so you don’t need miles upon miles of giant batteries to store excess power just in case.

      • crispy_kilt@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        The US produces less than half the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool of nuclear waste per year in total, so it’s not exactly hard to manage.

        Storing and monitoring that waste for 100’000 years is too expensive, even if we manage to do it.

        Nuclear power is simply not cost-effective.

      • drolex
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        7 months ago

        I am very well aware of the state of nuclear waste in France, and it’s not 96% recycled. This is absolutely laughable.

        • sparkle@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I should say up to 90-96%. It depends on the methods and the type of fuel you use. Currently widely used nuclear technology is more like 30-50% recyclable. That number is able to be increased by using more recyclable fuel technology, which is available.

          French nuclear waste in total is 0.0018 km³ (three olympic swimming pools) after 8 decades of using nuclear and primarily using nuclear for 4 decades, so I’m not so sure how you imply that the “state of nuclear waste” is bad. Even with the “inefficient” ways of using/recycling nuclear, there’s not a lot of waste produced in the first place.

          Only ~10% of French waste is actually long-lived too, meaning after a few decades to 3 centuries, 90% of it will no longer have abnormal radioactivity. Meaning the radioactiveness of the waste just goes away on its own after a moderately short period of time and it basically just turns into a big rock.

    • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      It might be good in the short term

      Considering that modern reactors seem to require well over a decade to be built, not really “short term”, and certainly “too late” for any sort of climate related purpose of emission curbing.