- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.
You must log in or # to comment.
Hey, a climate activist with some common sense!
The way I see it, we either get cleaner energy with some safer nuclear energy, or it’s still catastrophic and we all just die faster anyway. I’m down for nuclear lol
As it stands. Nuclear (fission) is the cleanest and safest form of energy available at the moment. When we get to fusion it’ll get even cheaper without even the miniscule amount of (stored)waste fission produces.
It is not the “cleanest” it is the most “climate friendly”. Commitment to nuclear waste is a thousand year long process of monitoring and processing waste products and our record on a short term commitment of like 50 years to climate change is not a good record. Its not clean and in the long term not likely cheap.
However its certainly not as destructive to the world as gas is right now so relieving climate change before some other catastrophic milestone occurs is probably a good idea. Folks saying “its too late” misunderstand climate change; there’s always another level bad we can hit and nuclear provides stable, reliable power.
It really isn’t a thousand year long process though. The containers they have for them are very long lasting. Bury it in a large containment facility deep in the mountains (Norway is making a large underground system specifically for this iirc) and just seal it up. Maintenance will be minimal.
Aren’t you able to recycle spent fuel for additional fuel and a lower amount of waste?
Yes, we could reduces the nuclear waste by recycling it and the technology for that exists since nearly the beginning of nuclear energy.
But the political pressure and the fearmongering of nuclear, paid by oil money, prevented the necessary longterm investmenst in that area.
To put the amont of nuclear waste in perspective.
- Total nuclear high level waste globally since existence: around 400 000 tonnes
- Yearly produced hazardous waste globally: around 400 000 000 tonnes
Nuclear waste is merely a dent in comparsion to alle the problematic waste we create. At least are able to contain it, while we are not able to contain a lot of the other stuff.
Adding a random comparsion for scale. The skyscraper Burj Khalifa in Dubai weights 500 000 tonnes.
Awesome! I always wondered when those voiced would get louder.
Hope she told Greenpeace as well where to leave the nuclear waste and how to archive costs similar to renewables. Because that’s a question I don’t know the answer to.
Thank God you’re not the one that has to figure it out then.
Long-term nuclear waste doesn’t take up huge amounts of space in the grand scheme of things. And while renewables are essential, having a nuclear backbone in the mix is going to be needed for times of lower output. Otherwise you’d need huge amounts of batteries which would drive up the cost again and slow down the move to zero fossil fuels.
I am from Germany. We have been looking for an “Endlager” (place to store the waste up to a million years safely) since the beginning of using nuclear energy and we haven’t found one. No one wants to have one in ones vicinity and the place where we are storing it now (Asse) is leaking. Times when the sun does not shine and there are no winds are rare and there are more options to store energy than batteries. What we need are better power grids to meet demands during those difficult times and harvest the renewable energy more efficient.
Plus, where does the uranium come from, that for example France uses? Russia (dictatorship), Kazakhstan and Niger (military coup). The sun and the wind don’t attack sovereign nations, don’t write an invoice and cannot pressure you to do a moral limbo when it comes to your energy resources.
It’s stupid because here in Australia we have the size of Western Europe as desert that won’t ever be used for anything. We already have ports and roads in and nuclear testing has already taken place in the desert.
Yet, somehow that area isn’t used as global mass storage for everyone’s nuclear waste despite decades of every nation with nuclear plants looking for one. I guess complex problems don’t always have simple solutions.
deleted by creator
Nuclear waste can be buried deep inside the ground in stable rock in specially made canisters, not possible everywhere in the world but it’s a good way to store it long term where it’s possible.
While other renewables might beat nuclear in costs they cant produce electricity when the sun doesnt shine or wind doesnt blow etc. So when also accounting for the energy storage to smooth out the spikes nuclear is considerably cheaper
I agree with the sentiment. I would caution people that nuclear waste can last something like 10k years but swapping the current climate crisis for a future radioactive waste storage crisis is probably good trade at the moment.
I mean, it was a good trade 50 years ago. An even better trade, really.
Anti-nuclear campaigns, when all is said and done, may have accidentally had the effect of turning sentiment against something that would have actually saved the planet.
Give LFTR now plz
I’m not sure it’s the right way now. Small modular reactors, regardless of tech, seem to be the way forward, and molten salt/thorium could just increase the amount of new things that need to be tested and developed.
Thanks god
I mean, they may as well. Even if Greenpeace disappeared entirely, cost would still stop construction of nuclear power plants.
All of them, on both sides of the “green spectrum” are either insane or ignoring reality.
Closing existing nuclear power plants is wasteful if they are still safe to run.
Creating new fission based power plants is useless because they will not be ready in time to make a bit of difference, separate from the fact that increasing surface water temperatures will render most of these units unusable/inefficient in the next decade or so.
Renewables+storage will be safer and at a much lower cost.
None of this will help save the “planet”. Reduction of (the growth of) carbon emissions is insufficient to cool the planet down in any way shape or form to a degree that helps in time to prevent disaster/extinction.
Increasing earths albedo is the only method currently achievable to get from +2W/m² forcing to -2W in time to save at least something of our current habitat but those sort of literally world saving options is drowned out by a discussion about how big energy can wring more subsidies from the public coffers by promising that Nuclear will save the day and having “Green” proponents make the argument for them. Don’t be fooled. Stop wasting public money on big, slow and ultimately wasteful projects just so energy companies can keep themselves alive.
Removed by mod
Horizon for going into production of a NPP is at least a decade, more likely two. By that time storage techniques and renewable prduction will be able to cope handsomely and at a lower price, so yes, too late. And yes we are much too late in reducing carbon output (output is still growing) and capturing greenhouse gasses is miles away from being relevant to cooling the planet.
Influx reduction is our best bet and it will have to happen quickly or this planet is going to be hard to live on.
Nuclear is not the future or even the present.
Removed by mod
From plan to production is not 7 years, just the building itself. Especially not now that cooling capabilities are disappearing (many of those French installations had to reduce output significantly due to the heat wave this year.) This will mean it will cost much longer to get these installations okayed and their usefulness is further limited.
Calling me an ecofacist also means this is the end of the line of this “discusssion”. Have fun in your alternate reality.
Removed by mod
Nuclear has never been good, just an “oh shit, we left it too late”.
Nuclear will be good when there is no wind, at night, with limited hydro and storage. The excitement with it has been from years of industry astroturfing. Seeing reddit go from opposed to, celebrating nuclear as thinking it was superior to all other renewables was a wild ride.
Nuclear is the best option
False. Solar PV, hydro and wind are superior without the nuclear waste problem.
Nuclear has a purpose in the mix, but more in a supporting role.
The nuclear waste problem’s solution is stick it in the side of a mountain in the middle of nowhere.
In good environmentally friendly concrete. So greeen.
What do you think hydroelectric dams get built with?
Smugness?
Once with concrete which lasts decades. But nuclear plants produce waste every day that needs concrete for decades. And they are built with concrete.
Nice try.
deleted by creator
Nuclear is easily the safest, cleanest and most efficient form of energy production. Until we get to nuclear fusion.
Seem like this young activist still has a lot to learn such as ditch centralized social media like twitter and listen more to what activists with more experience who have been fighting for climate for decades have to say
If you really want to be heard a main stream platform is far better than the fediverse. And activism isn’t the kind of thing where years of experience means your position has more merit.
And activism isn’t the kind of thing where years of experience means your position has more merit.
You are probably too young to remember activists protesting against oil getting rammed by the government, the same government that is supposed to have a monopoly over nuclear energy
Yeah. Those idiots were not educated enough to support nuclear over coal so she’s definitely on the right path.
The ones supporting coal over anything are probably big ass energy companies your government and billionares have ties with. Climate activists do not advocate for coal
They do by opposing nuclear. Good examples in Germany and in my home country Finland. Solar/wind cant replace nuclear by themselves. The old gen activists didnt really have the capacity to think that far with scientific mind nut unfortunately with emotion.
Sounds like you are the one thinking by emotion. Climate activists do not advocate for coal or oil and they don’t run germany or finland.
They did run germanys nuclear down. That increases the usage of coal. In finland the activists have opposed nuclear as well which has droven usage of coal up. This is one of the big reasons the green party lost the election so colossally here few months ago. Im driven by science and facts provided by science. Anybody opposing nuclear doesnt know/understand enough about the subject and is droven by emotion.
The increase of coal did not happen because of activists promoting green energy, it actually happened because your government (the really same that should be in charge for nuclear) doesn’t give a shit and push for coal anyway.
Anybody opposing nuclear doesn’t know/understand enough about the subject and is droven by emotion.
Seem the other way around to me, anyone with the slightest awareness and not driven by personal interests can easy understand the issues of nuclear and the advantage of green energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_'Ndrangheta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Incidents
You do realize that your links just prove the nuclear energys safety? There have been few tens of incidents over the years and every single one is documented with care and overall the amount of casualities is miniscule. We’ve had more people dying from hydro by itself.
Nuclear is greener energy than many of the other alternatives. It doesnt take much space in the nature and produces miniscule amount of waste that is easily stored and by nature will cease to exist in it’s radiant form over the years.
Nuclear is part of green energy movement and the most important piece of it. By this date no other form of green energy is capable of replacing nuclear. Not an opinion but a fact. It just really seems people still opposing nuclear dont understand how it produces energy, how strict the safety measurements are and how little waste it produces.
