this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2234 points (94.3% liked)

World News

39007 readers
2575 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

“There would still be waste that would have to be disposed, but the amount of long-lived waste can be significantly reduced,” Gehin said.

"Significantly less" is not defined. Is it 80% less? 50? 30? 10? The guy they're quoting, who has a vested interest in selling us this tech, sure doesn't say and uses the qualifier 'can be'. In fact, I can't seem to find that information anywhere, let alone this article.

Irregardless, there's still waste that will take hundreds (thousands?) of years to decay. The solution is renewable energy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're obviously not willing to change your mind, so this will be my last response. Googling "breeder reactor" will show you plenty of peer reviewed papers and findings from past experimental reactors that can answer your questions.

Apart from that, the point of the technology is obviously not to replace renewables, it's to

  1. Phase out coal and oil as fast as possible.
  2. Get rid of the nuclear waste we already accumulated (by turning it into energy).

Especially point 2, you are obviously and rightfully worried about nuclear waste - breeder reactors are the solution, the only one we currently know of. What else do you suggest we should do with that waste? Store it for millennia?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's not that I'm not willing to change my mind, it's that I'm hugely suspicious of the recent push for Nuclear. Energy companies dumped massive amounts of money into the technology and want to see a return on those failed investments. So I am skeptical that there's not some astroturfing and/or disinformation going on.

That said, when I was doing the research, I was looking up Fast Fusion, not Breeder Reactors so I'll look into it.

Also, your point about using nuclear to phase out of coal and into renewable has merit, but I think there's a danger that we get stuck on nuclear as it becomes easier/cheaper than coal and so development in green tech, like batteries, languishes for another four decades or whatever.

Anyways, I'll look into breeder reactors and, who knows, maybe have a change of heart (maybe).