- cross-posted to:
- technews@radiation.party
- cross-posted to:
- technews@radiation.party
There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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.
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
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
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
Awesome! I always wondered when those voiced would get louder.
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.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) English4•1 year ago
I mean, they may as well. Even if Greenpeace disappeared entirely, cost would still stop construction of nuclear power plants.
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.