this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
137 points (96.6% liked)
Asklemmy
44173 readers
1657 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
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
Why lump atom in with coal? Atom is great, coal stinks. You're confusing the stats.
Try to dismantle a nuclear plant. It costs tons of money and time. Ask the people at Nagasaki or Tschernobyl.
Dismantle a coal power plant takes time, but one can reuse the iron and such. All the open mining fields and mining tunnels are the problem. In Western Germany, there are areas where house crack or cars fall down sudden openings caused by old mining tunnels.
Try to dismantle at wind mill or solar fields. Itβs a quest of days and some bucks.
I prefer the easy way of living. So, my favorite are renewables.
You dismantled your plants because dismantling your plants is hard? π€ That seems backwards. Why not upgrade? Then you never have to dismantle. Keep it alive forever.
Upgrading would have cost way more. one of the reasons atom power is so expensive (without government subsidies) is the cost of the plants which needs to be recouped as well as the price of the uranium. not to mention that we haven't found a suitable place to store the waste for those thousands of years until it's harmless.
Who cares about cost. We should be willing to pay whatever it takes to end fossil fuel use.
That's why we invest in renewables.
@DrunkenPirate
> I prefer the easy way of living.
There is no such thing as "easy way of living".
Renewables suck at energy density, predictability and control.
Nuclear gives you all three.
Also, look into the solar panel manufacturing costs to the environment.
Of course, renewables are a must. But by dismantling nuclear you kneecapped yourselves, guys, big time.
@dragonfucker
Just stumpled upon this BBC article https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/23/sellafield-cleanup-cost-136bn-national-audit-office Cleaning up Sellafield, Europes biggest nuclear dump costs now up to 136.000.000.000 Β£ Thatβs the cost of nuclear. The dangerous rests of the power creation.
@DrunkenPirate I'd accept this argument if it were still 1950s.
The year is 2024. Now we know better what to do with nuclear waste.
First, it's actually crazy recyclable. You can separate plutonium and unreacted uranium from fission products and use it again, making your fuel cycle way more efficient.
Second, you don't actually need to store the leftover fission products in an on-ground dump, that's actually mighty dumb. Instead, the borehole disposal can be used. Basically, drill a hole several kilometers deep - that's easy enough when you take the drilling equipment from all those oil barons - put your fission products in there (they're quite compact by volume, if you separate it out) and then seal the hole with concrete. Nobody's going to dig this up ever again. It's a solved problem.
Cleaning up sites like Sellafield is just dealing with the wartime legacy, when nuclear research was less about energy production, and more about bombs. It doesn't have to be this way.
Still, we have to manage the waste of former years. Needs money for ages.