this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
664 points (69.5% liked)

Memes

46009 readers
2461 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 6) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 46 points 6 months ago

It's definitely not the best we have

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago

But we don't really have it now, which is the main problem. In the time it takes to build these things (also for the money it takes), we could plaster everything full with renewables and come up with a decentralized storage solution. Plus, being dependent on Kazachstan for fissile material seems very... stupid?

[–] [email protected] 55 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (8 children)

Just because it's safe doesn't mean it's the best we have right now.

  • It's massively expensive to set up
  • It's massively expensive to decommission at end of life
  • Almost half of the fuel you need to run them comes from a country dangerously close to Russia. (This one is slightly less of a thing now that Russia has bogged itself down in Ukraine)
  • It takes a long time to set up.
  • It has an image problem.

A combination of solar, wind, wave, tidal, more traditional hydro and geothermal (most of the cost with this is digging the holes. We've got a lot of deep old mines that can be repurposed) can easily be built to over capacity and or alongside adequate storage is the best solution in the here and now.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I would like to add, that though we have the means to store the radioactive waste safely, it's not done properly in many places. So it's also an organizational challenge.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] -4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

You realise you don't need to decomission entire building at EOL?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children)

The problem with these arguments and the focus of debates is that they are based on nuclear energy from uranium, not thorium. Thorium is ubiquitous in nature, power centers are much easier to set up and can be small and the waste, while initially (a bit) more radioactive than uranium waste, loses it's radiation level much faster

Edit:typo

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The abundance of uranium and thorium is of the same magnitude. The thing is economics. Uranium is cheap, and as long it is, we use the sources we have. As the peice of uranium rises other sources get economical including sea water extraction which is effectively renewable.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›