As the title says, I’m interested in this community’s perceptions on nuclear energy.

  • keepthepace@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    True sustainable > Nuclear > Fossil fuels

    Transitioning out of fossil fuels is #1 priority. Whatever it takes. Even shortening the transition by one year would be worth 40 more years of nuclear wastes, which are much much more easily manageable problem (unlike CO2 you can literally store nuclear waste in a hole for thousands of years without it messing up the environment)

    My long term preferred solution is renewables or fusion, but we are not yet at the point where we can deal with the intermittence (but closing that gap fast)

    I am really angry at the anti-nuclear movement. If we had gone all-in in that direction in the 90s we would be out of the fossil fuel economy by now.

    • monobot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      you can literally store nuclear waste in a hole for thousands of years without it messing up the environment

      No you can not, we still don’t have the technology to store it safety. And we definitely still don’t do it. If you do just a bit of research you will notice that nuclear waste is being stored in big water pools close to nuclear plants. I would not call that “safe, long term solution”.

      I am really angry at the anti-nuclear movement.

      Current nuclear technology was developed for nuclear weapons, it is a no go. We need to impove reserch into molten salt thorium reactors and fision, but uranium is not an option.

      • keepthepace@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Notwithstanding the fact that “big water pools” would not be an extremely high tech solution and could be a long term solution, you should look into geological storage. Enclosure in glass and concrete, storage deep enough to be below aquifers, do look like they can last millions of years (which, personally I think is a waste: a radioactive material is something that radiates energy. I am sure that within a century or two we will dig up these “wastes” to generate energy, I hope we make their enclosure easily openable)

        Current nuclear technology was developed for nuclear weapons

        True, and internet was developed by the DARPA. That’s largely irrelevant. The effort to make weapon-grade uranium (90%) is an order of magnitude above the effort to make power plants-grade uranium (20%)

        • monobot@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree that, in future, we will probably have ways to store and use energy from radioactive waste and I geological storage might probably be solution.

          But… we are still not close to it, “we will solve it in the future” is what got us here.

          Additionally, I just think there is no need to take such risks when there are other, safer options.

            • monobot@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you take a look at “Status” column, only four of them are in use. After 60 years of nuclear energy and 440 nuclear power plants in 32 countries.

              I call that a big fail, and exact problem I am talking about.

              We don’t even need to go into question wether thise will be safe for thousands of years, which is doubtful.

              • keepthepace@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                If I show you definite proof of extraterrestrial visits on Earth, it will not matter that 99.9999% of UFO sightings were fake.

                I call that a big fail, and exact problem I am talking about.

                No, you never specified the hypothetical blocking problems you are talking about. Existence of even one site in operation proves that no blocking problems exist.

                We don’t even need to go into question whether these will be safe for thousands of years, which is doubtful.

                My good man, these are designed for millions of years. Based on the observation of billions years old natural occurring isotopes. From the WP article:

                Despite a long-standing agreement among many experts that geological disposal can be safe, technologically feasible and environmentally sound, a large part of the general public in many countries remains skeptical as result of anti-nuclear campaigns.

                • monobot@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well I am sceptical. Maybe I can believe that US and other rich nations can make it work, I have huge doubts in most of the couries being careful enough.

    • JacobCoffinWrites@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seconding this. I’m very much against letting perfect be the enemy of good. Nuclear power is a useful capability and if it helps avert or slow climate change, we can work on dealing with the waste after that.

      • Nirile@slrpnk.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I hear and understand this perspective. For me, the overwhelming focus on carbon emissions misses the point that the planet and our relationship to it is sick. We have to consider the overall health of the planet and future generations when we make our decisions.

        I’m by no means advocating for increasing the utilization of coal, oil, and gas, but just wanting to challenge my own feelings around nuclear energy.

        Some how I feel like the fact that nuclear is also reliant on extraction gets lost in the focus on decarbonization.