• umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Don’t push nuclear power like it’s the only option though.

    Where I live we entirely provide energy from hydro power plants and nuclear energy is banned. We use no fossil fuels. We have a 35 year plan for future growth and it doesn’t include any fossil fuels. Nuclear power is just one of the options and it has many hurdles to implement, maintain and decommission.

    • Astrealix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Honestly, if you can, hydro is brilliant. Not many places can though — both because of geography and politics. Nuclear is better than a lot of the alternatives and shouldn’t be discounted.

        • Astrealix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Which each have their drawbacks. Just as an example, though not representative of the majority, what do you do about months of no sun in the Arctic Circle for solar power? There is no single solution to this problem. Nuclear is better than fossil fuels by far, and we should not just throw it away out of fear.

        • Astrealix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I know it’s a damn lot easier than carbon recapture, if we’re talking waste products. It’s not ideal, but there is no such thing as perfect, and we shouldn’t let that be the enemy of good. Nuclear fission power is part of a large group of methods to help us switch off fossil fuels.

          • EMPig@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Easier”? Are you aware of the fact that radioactive waste tombs are meant to stand for millions of years? It requres a lot of territory, construction and servance charges, and lots of prays for nothing destructive happens with it in its “infinite” lifetime.

            • Astrealix@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Have you tried capturing gas? As difficult as radioactive waste tombs are, they’re easier than containing a specific type of air lol.

              • EMPig@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                Read about breathing if you want to know how to capture gas. Also, about photosynthesis.

                • Astrealix@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you want to buy the land to plant a second Amazon, be my guest. And breathing does the exact opposite of what we want.

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Launching radioactive waste into space is a terrible idea, because rockets on occasion crash. Once that happens it becomes a nuclear disaster.

            Instead we can safely store it in depleted mines.

    • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It would be cool to see huge investments into battery storage. If we could create a battery that doesn’t just leak energy from storing, we could generate power in one location and ship it out where it’s needed. There could be remote energy production plants using geothermal or hydroelectric power that ship out these charged batteries to locations all over. It would let us better utilize resources instead of having to have cities anchored around these sources.

      Or we could generate a ton of power all at once, store it and use it as needed rather having to have on demand energy production

      Hell with better batteries even fossil fuels begin to be climate friendly since you could store the massive energy created and know you’re using close to 100% of it.

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It would be cool to see huge investments into battery storage.

        Globally humanity already invests over 10 Billion dollars per year in advancing battery technology.

        If we could create a battery that doesn’t just leak energy from storing…

        In order to build what you are talking about will almost certainly require real room temperature super conductors. We can get close, maybe, with the next generation of Aluminum-Air or Iron-Air batteries but this is big pimping. It’s incredibly complicated and difficult.

        It’s like Fusion Power. We can see a future where we have it figured out and working but it’s still some years, if not decades, away.

        • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Power lines would still mean we need energy on demand though wouldn’t it. And if we can transport energy from an area like a huge solar array in the Sahara to Kazakhstan or China it would be better. I was just raising it as an off thought like maybe theres more ways to think about solving this problem than just building plants. What level of storage ability could we have that would let us build a large solar array in the Sahara to power Africa and Europe vs just building more plants. I think our end goal will be energy storage and like you brought up transport/transmission. I think that because I think we have energy production pretty well solved

    • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why do you think they’re pushing it for a reason? Renewables are very much a great option without the nuclear power. I hate that they’re here, but the nuclear activists are definitely here. 3 words, Fukushima, Fukushima, Fukushima.

      • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The nuclear power plant decades older than Chernobyl that got hit by an earthquake and a tsunami and resulted in a only single death and some expensive clean up?

      • Astrealix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        How many 9.1 magnitude earthquakes do you think there are? And the reports following the disaster showed that there were definitely ways to prevent it from happening, like, for example, not building it so close to the sea.

          • Astrealix@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, if we want to go down that path, there’s no reason to think that governments won’t just stick to fossil fuels and fuck us all.

            Even so, it took a literal once-in-a-century earthquake in the right place to send a tsunami to the perfectly misplaced reactor to actually make just one person die. One. And two died from the aforementioned massive tsunami caused by an earthquake that occurs around once a century.

            • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              I watched that in real time, more than one person died and it ruined a whole region that they’re just now sort of recovering from. It was devastating to them. You’re not even making any sense.

              • Astrealix@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                The deaths came from the, again, once-in-a-century earthquake. Evacuations, yes. Deaths, no.

                “Nobody died as a direct result of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. However, in 2018 one worker in charge of measuring radiation at the plant died of lung cancer caused by radiation exposure.” — Encyclopedia Britannica. (https://www.britannica.com/event/Fukushima-accident)

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The push for nuclear power across social media is 100% an industry sanctioned psyop.

          Oh please, I’ve been advocating for nuclear power since before most people even owned a dial up modem. You younger ones see everything through a haze of recency bias.

        • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s so stupid too, Fukushima just released their contaminated water from over 10 years ago into the ocean last week. Do they not read the news? At least wait until disaster news from actual nuclear power plant disasters aren’t fresh in everyone’s minds.