• Instigate
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Particularly nuclear fusion, which doesn’t generate long-lived radioactive isotopes as byproducts of energy production. Nuclear fission still has a place to be sure, but once we crack the dilemmas with fusion all bets are off when it comes to generating huge amounts of clean energy.

        • Rolder@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Fission gets a bad rap. The amount of waste it produces is minuscule compared to the amount of waste generated by fossil fuels, and it’s generally easier to deal with too. Just needs actual proper maintenance and care.

          • ryannathans
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            8 months ago

            People acting like coal isn’t radioactive or extremely toxic for everyone around

            • brisk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              I don’t think there are too many people arguing against fission who are in favour of coal

              • ryannathans
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                You say that but that’s practically Australia in a nutshell, nuclear is explicitly banned for the purposes of energy production

                • brisk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  The coal plants are decommissioning due to costs, renewable energy is booming, and (obviously due to the ban) there is no local nuclear industry or expertise. Even if you manage to lift the ban, which nobody is trying to do*, nuclear would not be replacing coal plants here, but might divert renewable funding. In other countries I have no doubt building more nuclear could offset coal, not here.

                  * The coalition claims to be in favour of nuclear power, but they’ve spruiked it before in opposition, and nothing gets tabled when they’re in power. It’s got as much chance of happening as high speed rail.

                  • ryannathans
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    Any idea what fraction of our total power consumed is from renewables?

          • Jojo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Biggest and just about onliest problem with nuclear fission is how expensive it is to set it up, both in terms of time and money.

            Edit: typo

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Testing and stuff probably does by a tiny fraction, because they need to use insane amounts of power to get it started which is probably produced by coal/oil.

      But once it’s actually working and producing more power than it consumes it will be the best solution to stopping greenhouse gases for energy production. It would be the end of gas/oil/coal in the energy sector. Probably wouldn’t even need to use solar or wind anymore.