• monobot@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    And it is always a question how they calculated handling of nuclear waste.

    There are options, we can use coal and natural gas for on demand power to fill the gaps in renewables, we don’t have to quit all at once. New ideas for energy storage and comming around, some of them might be useful for small towns, others for remote places.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      there is very very very little nuclear waste.this is complete handwringing. it can be buried and forgotten.

      Bigger issue is the carbon costs and pay back periods. Nuclear (unless you’ve got sources otherwise stating) is green in it’s planning phase but not as often in execution. A shit ton of concrete is used, and the plants rarely operate at the capacity they are expected to (or have in the past). Open to revision but that’s my current understanding.

      They are a massive upfront carbon cost and only become carbon neutral or negative relative to fossil fuels 20+ years down the line.

      • LetMeEatCake@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you have data on that? A modern nuclear power plant is going to be in the 500-1000+ MW range. I have a hard time imagining that even operating at half capacity that they do not offset the carbon used for concrete within a relatively short order. But if that is in fact the case I’d love to see data saying so, so that I can correct my thinking.

    • Uranium3006@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      nuclear waste, by definition of being radioactive, is the only wast that goes away on it’s own if you leave it sit for long enough

      • Knusper@feddit.deOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I was considering whether this is just a shitpost, but your other comments suggest that you’re completely serious. It does not go away. Radioactive decay causes multiple transitions between radioactive elements until it ends up as lead, which does not decay further.

        Of course, it should also be said that it’s better to have no waste than waste that eventually turns into lead.
        And that it’s still better to have waste than waste which also happens to be toxic.

        • Uranium3006@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          right, but when it lands at lead it’s no longer radioactive waste, which is the part everyone’s scared of. chemical waste doesn’t just go away like that.