• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    02 months ago

    Nuclear waste is a solved problem.

    Dig a deep hole, put the nuclear waste in the hole, backfill with clay.

    Solved.

    Now I understand that different places on earth have less suitable bedrock for this storage, so I voulenteer my home municipality in Sweden as a global storage site, we have stable bedrock, the technical skill and a stable government.

    As for the “we don’t have time” bullshit, I have heard that for more than ten years, it is pure bullshit, the best time to build nuclear power was ten years ago, the second best time is today.

    You can yell about solar/wind as much as you ever want, but they can’t deal with the baseload as well as nuclear or coal can, coal is buring the entire planet, nuclear MIGHT at worst create a temporary inconvenience where a relatively small area has to be closed to humans. Continued use of coal will cause far, far worse harm.

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

      Your language is rude. Please adress your point in a more formal way, without claiming that I would be yelling or bullshitting.

      I still don’t see the deposition of nuclear waste as straight forward as you claim. We have accumulated waste for many decades and, so far, have establiahed only a single site. If this was new technology I would give it the benefit of the doubt, but we have decaying castors, wich will become more and more difficult to handle, as the fule rods become brittle. Just building new Reactors and think we will handle the waste eventually, is not enough to convince me.

      If we had the resources to build nuclear powerplants and renewables, we should do both, but we have not. Thus, every Cent spent on nuclear is not spent on renewables which give more power per invested money.[1]

      Baseload: The grids might not yet handle a widespread dunkelflaute, but they can be, and currently are, extended to shift energy from production places to the regions where they are needed. Furthermore the cost of energy storage is falling every every year[2], while the the cost of nuclear remains more or less stagnant.[3]

      I agree that coal does more harm than nuclear, but as states above, we should put our effort in renewables.

      [1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2024/may/24/nuclear-power-australia-liberal-coalition-peter-dutton-cost
      [2] https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline
      [3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/184754/cost-of-nuclear-electricity-production-in-the-us-since-2000/

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        02 months ago

        Sorry for being rude, I have just heard the same arguments over and over and over, and I am getting tired of them.

        The reason as to why we haven’t built more storage sites is our fear, our fear of radiation, most people don’t understand how radiation works and have seen horrible photos and videos from Chernobyl and think that it is impossible to go there still.

        It is the nimby crowd who has messed it up so completely.

        Add to that the odd report about how to prevent future humans from the waste sites, something not needed, which plays on the fears.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          02 months ago

          I agree that fear and NIMBYs are one key issue that hinders us into progressing into a green future. Although we may not agree how to proceed best, it is important that we take quick and large steps, and stay united against continuing the emissions of CO2.

          Thanks for the discussion :)