• Ptsf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Honestly, despite all of nuclears many benefits, there’s still no good action plan for the significant amounts of substantially dangerous waste it leaves around. Hard to figure out a storage plan for an invisible poison seeping from a rock for the next 50,000 years.

    • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Does it actually seep? my understanding of chemical waste is: that it doesn’t generate a lot (the US has about a foot ball fields worth from all of our nuclear power plants in our total history, so nearly 70 years), and that they placed is secure, not leaking containers. You’re right that it will eventually be a problem, but probably a problem that we will have to deal with later than our current climate crisis. An argument could be made that maybe new nuclear plants shouldn’t be made, but if we have some up and running, that’s cheap energy that generates little carbon.

      • DrunkenPirate@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        but if we have some up and running, that’s cheap energy that generates little carbon.

        That is the great misunderstanding of nuclear. It isn’t cheap. It’s supported massively by tax money. In France with all its big nuclear plants for example, the power company went bankrupt. Nuclear is too expensive to run. The government took over the operations.

        In Germany, the power companies refused to prolong the operations of nuclear at the beginning of Russian invasion. It was too expensive for them.

        The only advantage that nuclear has, is that it’s independent of weather and doesn’t emit carbon. The drawback is the costs, inflexibility (always on), and reliance on cool water (which was an issue in France). That’s why MS, Amazon and all put there eggs into this basket for AI power - they shit money.