• GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    I do think that nuclear power is necessary for the green transition. For now at least.

    But two things: 1. It creates radioactive waste that will destroy storage sites for centuries to come. 2. Mining and preparing the fuel needed for the reactors is far from green.

    • bastion
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Third and fourth-gen nuclear addresses these issues to a very, very significant degree.

      Like, less than 1% of the current waste stream, and waste that lasts around 300 years (as opposed to the current 27,000 (fucking) years.

    • Forester@yiffit.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      7 months ago
      1. It creates radioactive waste that will destroy storage sites for centuries to come.
      2. Mining and preparing the fuel needed for the reactors is far from green.

      Do all of you share one brain cell? Have you ever researched nuclear beyond slurping big oil propaganda? Fossil fuels are currently devastating our water and air, but yes lets fret on hypothetical issues.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_drillhole_disposal https://yle.fi/a/3-10847558

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

      • Ulvain@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Just insulting people will always make them buck against your points, however valid and informed. Bad approach.

        The problem with radioactive waste isn’t the fact that it’s dangerous now, it’s the fact that it remains dangerous for much longer than we’re even remotely able to plan for. People will likely have to deal with that danger in waaaay longer than civilization has existed on earth so far.

        So the horizontal borehole for instance: amazing idea for the next century - or even, heck, few millenia!! - but how do you make sure our ancestors in 50,000 years never drill a new borehole right there?

        • MaxHardwood@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          What you’re calling radioactive waste is a marketing term. In nuclear power it’s referred to as unspent fuel. We’re just getting to the point in our nuclear power technology to be able to use the rest of the “radioactive waste”. It’s why we don’t bury and seal off the storage sites. It’s still fissionable material with the right technology.