Asklemmy

43945 readers

671 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

160

How do we package food products sustainably in coming decades? (lemmy.world)

submitted 7 months ago by j4k3@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

99 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I imagine all plastics will be out of the question. I'm wondering about what ways food packaging might become regulated to upcycling in the domestic or even commercial space. Assuming energy remains a $ scarce $ commodity I don't imagine recycling glass will be super practical as a replacement. Do we move to more unpackaged goods and bring our own containers to fill at markets? Do we start running two way logistics chains where a more durable glass container is bought and returned to market? How do we achieve a lower energy state of normal in packaging goods?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

nuclear produces radioactive waste,

Radioactive waste is not nearly as significant a problem as has been drilled into our heads. All that waste is dangerous precisely because it is so energetic.

"Fast" reactors reprocess and burn "spent" fuel rods and other high-level waste, leaving only low-level waste with half-lives measured in weeks and months. This low-level waste stabilizes (becomes less radioactive than a banana) in decades, not millennia.

A sufficiently large, sufficiently expensive stockpile of high level waste from low-efficiency reactors provides a hell of an incentive to build fast reactors.

[–] fireweed@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Okay, but even in an efficient system there's still a waste product. My point wasn't to compare-and-contrast trade-offs, simply to acknowledge that every form of energy generation has them to some degree. Plus nuclear still requires a mined resource, and again, mining is an environmentally damaging activity. Just because something is better than alternatives that doesn't give it a free pass.