• @Shiggles
    link
    258 months ago

    Oh boy, another hot take from a well educated and informed source, I’m sure.

    80% of what you think about nuclear is fossil fuel propaganda, 10% is because the soviets are dipshits, and the last 10% are reasonable concerns that redundant safety system upon redundant safety systems address.

    • @Meowoem
      link
      28 months ago

      Every safety system makes it more expensive to run and they’re already not profitable, do you really think they’ll just keep throwing money into it without cutting corners? One little economic downturn and we start getting problems…

      Why even risk it when we could have far better systems from the start? Nuclear is nice in science fiction but when you actually have to plug the numbers into the real world it doesn’t look good at all, especially not compared to wind, solar and tidal

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      08 months ago

      Insulting people you disagree with is a rather poor way to win them over and/or create productive discourse.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -48 months ago

      Let me tell you about the “Asse” in Lower Saxony, Germany…

      There is no way to safely store nuclear waste. It makes entire landscapes unusable, it lasts nearly forever and… the waste management is done by the state, not the company!

      Nuclear power is some capitalist bullshit that outsources the waste and risks to the state. Only in that case its profitable in any way.

      Solar and Wind are so much easier, solar extremely. If we could change out loads, focus everything on the day and simply not use that much at night, we wouldnt even need that much wind. Decentralized, local networks of Solar Power are the future.

      • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)
        link
        fedilink
        98 months ago

        sigh I posted this elsewhere in the thread, but it sounds like you might need to hear this too:


        We would have had [the storage of nuclear waste] solved a long time ago if it weren’t for a few factors.

        The first is that a significant amount of radioactive waste is short-term. Like, literally inert after a couple years. The reason for that is because the vast majority of radioactive waste isn’t actually inherently radioactive. Most of it has become radioactive as a result of coming into extended contact with highly radioactive sources. However my understanding is that despite being short-lived, you must dispose of it the same way you’d dispose of nuclear fuel rods. This is an issue that could be resolved by separating the short-lived stuff from the fuel rods and returning the short-lived stuff to a landfill once radioactivity drops to background radiation levels.

        Factor 2: paranoia. We had a potential permanent waste site in the middle of nowhere, in an extremely geologically stable area in the US that has virtually no chance of flooding, however people thought that radioactive waste buried beneath a literal mountain would somehow still poison them. So Yucca Mountain was never fully completed. Afaik it’s technically still on the table but it’s been completely defunded thanks to NIMBYs, so instead nuclear waste is being stored across the US at various nuclear plants which are less geologically stable, have a higher chance for flooding, etc. This also hampers state and national efforts to clean up decommissioned plants and nuclear accidents. The waste has to go somewhere; if you have no where to safely store it, you can’t clean it up.

        Factor 3: if I understand correctly, we could hypothetically design nuclear plants with reactor chains that produce dead fuel rods (fuel rods that are completely spent). However, a lot of weapons-grade material would be produced during the intermediate stages. For sooome reason everyone freaks out when they hear you’re making weapons-grade radioactive material, even if you promise you’re just using it to generate power. I can’t imagine why /s

        The problems with nuclear storage are actually pretty easily solved, it’s just that no one wants to because they’d rather pretend nuclear doesn’t exist to begin with. I swear, we could have a one-time pill that makes you fully immune to every radiation-induced disease and people would still freak out about nuclear. Hell, there was an article I saw a month or two about how a bunch of researches discovered that turning used graphite control rods into diamonds resulted in low-power batteries that could be used for things that require a small amount of power over long durations (like SSDs or RAM). Iirc something about the diamond’s structure meant it contained its own radiation as well, meaning it didn’t need any radiation shielding either despite generating energy via radioactivity.


        Also,

        the waste management is done by the state

        Maybe in Germany, but afaik in the US it’s done by the company until it’s time to move it to a permanent storage facility. Because permanent storage facilities don’t exist in the US, that means the company has to take care of it indefinitely. I don’t know about you, but I’d much rather have it in the indefinite care of the US government than in the indefinite care of a company.

        Decentralized, local networks of Solar Power are the future.

        You’re partially right imo. Those would be great, but you’re offloading cost on the individual, who are already being squeezed by capitalism. Additionally, iirc centralized wind and solar can cause a significant disruption to the local ecosystems. Are they preferable to coal and gas? Hell yeah! But you cannot convince me that miles of turbines and solar panels are less disruptive than a properly maintained nuclear plant.

        Ideally we’d be building fusion plants at this point, but I feel like I haven’t heard any major fusion-related news lately which makes me worried that funding might be falling off.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          28 months ago

          Really interesting things. Nuclear power is still non regenerative though. And I have no clear opinion on if its safe or not, just that its not really necessary.

          No, costs for decentralized Solar would not be on the Individuals. Individuals are a Product of Capitalism, if you want to phrase it like this. They are consumers of electrical power and also now Producers. There should simply be an amount of solar power everyone can have, per capita for example. And for every person this power is then produced, on their roof or elswhere if its not fitting.

          I have no clear plan, as consumers need to pay the consume. But for example having a tax-free lending (non native no idea how its called) would help

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        6
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        “Nuclear power is capitalist bullshit” is not the hot take I was expecting. And it’s utter horseshit.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          0
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I can see nuclear power plants being a capitalists dream though. It’s not like renewable energy sources, that can be owned by smaller groups of people. A nuclear power plant is owned by a corporation.

          It’s also quite capitalist in nature when you consider that it mostly burdens future generations for gains and profits now. And it exploits a non-renewable natural source for resources.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            3
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Yeah all those corporations in in the USSR owning all those nuclear plants…

            The power generation isn’t inherently biased to one economic system.

            There are other ways of organising.

            You just seem short sighted.

      • Fazoo
        link
        fedilink
        -18 months ago

        Except there are ways to use the waste as fuel. So no, not some “capitalist bullshit”. Just a problem with a solution.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          08 months ago

          Only the fuel can be reused up to a certain percentage. Most of the waste is just waste that you have to store somewhere.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -1
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Okay, so what is the waste mitigation for solar panels and windwill blades?

            Currently they just get land filled. Or burnt.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              18 months ago

              Windmill blades are afaik way worse than solar panels. And again, as its capitalist, focussing on efficiency, price or even (who would expect?) planned obsolescence, these products may not be as repairable as possible.

              For example, give up 2% efficiency but have the solar panel parts easily seperateable. Have every part modular, they may be bigger and heavier, but allow a circular economy.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              It’s bad there is not better recycling for some parts as of now, but there are plenty of companies actively working on new techniques regarding that. Short article on it here.

              It’s also not nuclear trash, so you can dispose of it way easier and cheaper.