this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
314 points (94.4% liked)
Technology
59653 readers
4186 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
yes, but extremely toxic and radioactive waste tho.
thorium could be an option
fusion could be an option
or... ya know, we just continue expanding solar and wind energy until we have one of the above.
Yeah, no reason to ever think of alternate options. Just push one or two things until they magically work for everything somehow.
solar and wind are great but the fact of the matter is they are unreliable. Nuclear is the perfect option. EVEN if the current form of nuclear is not an ideal solution, it is better than using fossil fuels until we fund thorium and fusion enough for it to become viable.
for sure, but nuclear fission like we are doing it right now is definetely not sustainable. we can do it for like a hundred more years, then the waste really starts piling up.
How about we build the reactors that can consume the extremely toxic waste so that we can get rid of it?
i think we would've done that.
We can. You can blame the "Greens" for it not happening.
Toxic/Radioactive waste is obviously toxic and radioactive, but how bad that really is is kind of overblown especially if you compare it to the harm caused by popular existing methods like coal/etc. When adjusted based on energy produced, there's more than one study out there showing how Nuclear is significantly safer than coal by a very wide margin. Coal ash is also radioactive and coal plants have very limited requirements to prevent it from escaping to the environment.
Even 'Radioactive Waste' really only feels scary because all of the bad stuff is condensed into a much smaller package when you adjust based on energy produced again.
yes, absolutely. we germans should've shut down coal plants first. but there's no point in reactivating the nuclear power plants, especially because we are literally producing more power than we can use. 60% of which is renewables. some providers will give you energy for basically free, as long as you use it at night when everything shuts down.
Thorium fuel cycle is nearly the same as the uranium fuel cycle in regards to downsides. It just requires breeders, which you could use with uranium too. The only real benefit of thorium is that it's more plentiful, but the cost in nuclear power isn't in Uranium.