• zergtoshi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Riddle me this: where are the ultimate disposal places for nuclear waste and how much does it cost to operate them for the next tens of thousands of years - at least. Please do enlighten me about the (technically and economically) working solutions for nuclear waste. But I do agree that fossil is shit now and it was then.
    And there’s zero risk of radioactive contamination when using solar (or hydro or wind), statistics my ass.
    Have you ever heard of the disaster at Chernobyl? And it was close more often: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
    Calling the certainty of nuclear waste and the risk of contamination vibes is as ridiculous as it can get.
    Btw. there’s a difference between risks that affect people once and risks that affect people for centuries.

    • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Even before we get to nuclear disposal places, there are reactors which can literally use the waste from other reactors, producing more energy and reducing the waste. And once it cannot be reused anymore, it can be safely stored underground, which you cannot do with the waste from fossil fuels. Do you have working solutions for carbon emissions? Because renewables still cannot keep up with the demand, and everyone will tell you need something other than them to jump start grids, base load, and for emergencies.

      And yes, it’s vibes. Factually, nuclear is safer than all renewables, except solar. This is a blatant mathematical and statistical fact. I can also link to plane crashes. Are you going to cry to me about how they are more dangerous than cars? And Chernobyl happened very early in nuclear energy production technology, we have improved a lot since, and even the most recent accidents were on plants that have existed for a while.

      Where do you think the materials to build renewables come from? Mines. Did you know mines are radioactive, and release radioactive which is not contained? So newsflash: not just coal, but even iron mines release radioactivity due to trace amounts of radioactive material. This radioactivity is not contained. And given how there are people in there, and they are often close to civilization, they are even worse for people than nuclear waste disposal sites which are deep underground and where almost no one goes.

      You are ignorant. Period, end of. I’m tired of hearing ignorant and anti-science people spreading missinfo while pretending to care about science and facts. Climate scientists have literally been advocating for nuclear as a green alternative.

      • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        there are reactors which can literally use the waste from other reactors

        In theory or in practice? If in practice, please name/link them.

        Do you have working solutions for carbon emissions?

        Until you showed me the reactors that use nuclear waste from other reactors, I call it the bullshit that carbon capture is - greenwashing to continue with the harmful processes.
        We need to avoid carbon emissions and nuclear waste. Period.

        You are ignorant. Period, end of. I’m tired of hearing ignorant and anti-science people spreading missinfo while pretending to care about science and facts.

        Do you know how you sound?
        Link to the science or stfu.