this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
665 points (69.5% liked)
Memes
46039 readers
3476 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just because it's safe doesn't mean it's the best we have right now.
A combination of solar, wind, wave, tidal, more traditional hydro and geothermal (most of the cost with this is digging the holes. We've got a lot of deep old mines that can be repurposed) can easily be built to over capacity and or alongside adequate storage is the best solution in the here and now.
I would like to add, that though we have the means to store the radioactive waste safely, it's not done properly in many places. So it's also an organizational challenge.
Storage is not easy when you don't have massive amounts of free land. This is an ongoing debate in Europe, and in one particular country a leaky storage was discovered just a month or two ago. Again.
And there is no guarantee that what we build today is not going to be a massive liability in 50 or 200 or hell, 500 years. But the companies and people who are responsible will not even exist at this point.
The problem with these arguments and the focus of debates is that they are based on nuclear energy from uranium, not thorium. Thorium is ubiquitous in nature, power centers are much easier to set up and can be small and the waste, while initially (a bit) more radioactive than uranium waste, loses it's radiation level much faster
Edit:typo
Where are the thorium reactor ? We currently have none. Are we allowed to throw speculative energy source in the debate ?
ILL THROW FUSION!!!!!
Already India and chine have had working ones for many years. It's not speculative and I recommend you to research the tech. It's unfortunately not very present in western nuclear energy debates. Could be a political reason but that's just a dirty guess
I thought all thorium based reactor were still at the research stage. I made a quick search to see if there was any in actual use but couldn't find a source. If you have one please send it I'm really interested.
If they are still at the research stage then I'll wait until one is built at scale to decide whether they are a better alternative.
These arguments were true in the 1950-s, they're not anymore.
They are true now. Nuclear takes around 10 years and billions to get up and running. SMR"s may help this but that's a tech that's a few years off at least. Decommissioning is still a big deal. Yeah reactors will last 30 odd years, but it still needs considering. Around 40% of uranium is still mined in Kazakhstan. Finally and probably most importantly as most of us live in countries that at least claim to be democracies public perception of nuclear is actually a lot worse than in the 50s.
SMR's aren't even cheaper or faster. China has shown that.
No, they're not. If we reroute all the investment from renewables into nuclear, we will see the results.
Again, public perception. That might work outside of democracies. But not where people can vote.
I personally would never vote to cut renewables out entirely. That's a hard sell.
You realise you don't need to decomission entire building at EOL?
What about the storage for the used fuel? This is a massive problem for any country not occupying half a continent.
As first step separate useful isotopes from used fuel. Most of used fuel are them. The rest won't be as big.
It is so safe. Very.
Probably not a good idea to use russia as your example when youre trying to make nuclear look like the better option..
First one is Ukraine
Former soviet union and the dam was blown up by russia..
Ok. What's your point? Did I argue that nuclear was unsafe?