this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2117 points (94.3% liked)

World News

38979 readers
2750 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dojan@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (16 children)

I mean it's not the companies operating the facilities we put our trust in, but the outside regulators whose job it is to ensure these facilities are safe and meet a certain standard. As well as the engineers and scientists that design these systems.

Nuclear power isn't 100% safe or risk-free, but it's hella effective and leaps and bounds better than fossil fuels. We can embrace nuclear, renewables and fossil free methods, or just continue burning the world.

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (25 children)

The worst nuclear disaster has led to 1,000sq miles of land being unsafe for human inhabitants.

Using fossil fuels for power is destroying of the entire planet.

It's really not that complicated.

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

Except that nuclear isn't the only, or even the cheapest, alternative to fossil fuels.

[–] pedroapero@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Except that powering the world with nuclear would require thousands of reactors and so much more disasters. This doesn't even factor the space abandonned to store «normal» toxic materials.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This doesn't even factor the space abandonned to store «normal» toxic materials.

You mean under ground from where it was dug out?

[–] pedroapero@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The plant itself, water inevitably getting in contact with wastes and leaking also.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You mean water under ground? It was in contact million years before any of us was born.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)
[–] umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago (16 children)

Don’t push nuclear power like it’s the only option though.

Where I live we entirely provide energy from hydro power plants and nuclear energy is banned. We use no fossil fuels. We have a 35 year plan for future growth and it doesn’t include any fossil fuels. Nuclear power is just one of the options and it has many hurdles to implement, maintain and decommission.

[–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (28 children)

Honestly, if you can, hydro is brilliant. Not many places can though — both because of geography and politics. Nuclear is better than a lot of the alternatives and shouldn't be discounted.

load more comments (27 replies)
[–] dojan@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

My country, Sweden, also gets a decent chunk of power from hydro. Back in 2021, about 43% was hydroelectric, and 31% was nuclear.

[–] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

It would be cool to see huge investments into battery storage. If we could create a battery that doesn't just leak energy from storing, we could generate power in one location and ship it out where it's needed. There could be remote energy production plants using geothermal or hydroelectric power that ship out these charged batteries to locations all over. It would let us better utilize resources instead of having to have cities anchored around these sources.

Or we could generate a ton of power all at once, store it and use it as needed rather having to have on demand energy production

Hell with better batteries even fossil fuels begin to be climate friendly since you could store the massive energy created and know you're using close to 100% of it.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It would be cool to see huge investments into battery storage.

Globally humanity already invests over 10 Billion dollars per year in advancing battery technology.

If we could create a battery that doesn’t just leak energy from storing...

In order to build what you are talking about will almost certainly require real room temperature super conductors. We can get close, maybe, with the next generation of Aluminum-Air or Iron-Air batteries but this is big pimping. It's incredibly complicated and difficult.

It's like Fusion Power. We can see a future where we have it figured out and working but it's still some years, if not decades, away.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It’s like Fusion Power. We can see a future where we have it figured out and working but it’s still some years, if not decades, away.

Allow me to share the most frustrating graph I have ever seen

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem is its potential for harm. And I don't mean meltdown. Storage is the problem that doesn't seem to have strong solutions right now. And the potential for them to make a mistake and store the waste improperly is pretty catastrophic.

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (7 children)

"Nuclear waste" sounds super scary, but most of it are things like tools and clothing, that have comparatively tiny amount of radioactivity. Sure it still needs to be stored properly, very little high level waste is actually generated.

You know what else is catastrophic? Fossil fuels and the impact they have on the climate. I'm not arguing that we should put all our eggs in one basket, but getting started and doing something to move away from the BS that is coal, gas, and oil is really something we should've prioritised fifty years ago. Instead they have us arguing whether we should go with hydroelectric, or put up with "ugly windmills" or "solar farms" or "dangerous nuclear plants."

It's all bullshit. Our world is literally on fire and no one seems to actually give a fuck. We have fantastic tools that could've halted the progress had we used them in time, but fifty years later we're still arguing about this.

At this point I honestly hope we do burn. This is a filter mankind does not deserve to pass. We're too evil to survive.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)