this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
783 points (90.2% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26914 readers
2221 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sniatch@lemmy.world 38 points 6 months ago (7 children)

People who want nuclear plants should also vote for having a nuclear waste storage in your area if that is possible. In germany we still dont have a solution for the waste we already have and the states who want Nuclear Plants are already said no to havin a storage in their state. You cant make this shit up

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 27 points 6 months ago (1 children)

As someone who has actually looked into nuclear waste and the current storage techniques instead of relying on knee-jerk fear mongering, yes. Store it in my area. Hell, store the casks underneath my house for all I care. If you are surprised by this answer, it's because you don't know shit about nuclear waste and how little of a problem it is.

[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

(Below is my opinion, I respect you have yours, and I'm not having a go at you. I just want to take part in the discourse friendo!)

To me, if they wanted to store it in my area by encasing it now (or, any time in like the last 40 years), I wouldn't mind either.

The issue that isn't fear-mongering that people continually overlook because of all the knee-jerking people lamenting that it's "unsafe", is that we then have to maintain containment for thousands upon thousands of years.

That's the issue, permanent storage, not all the temporary storage that is happening now.

Nuclear is not a great solution to immediately reducing emissions, in my opinion. Takes way too much capital and way too much time to get operational. Don't close still operating plants, but damn, we need to be building the fastest shit possible, right now. Not something that takes a decade to build. We have solutions ready, governments just aren't getting their act together and build it. Even if the business-case doesn't make complete sense; we don't have time.

Sand batteries, liquid air energy storage, lithium ion batteries, flow batteries, (plus a bunch of other contenders) they're all immature technologies but they do work right now, anywhere, no terrain for pumped-hydro required. Sure they're not very efficient, or have crap lifespan in the case of Li-ion, but solar plants literally aren't being built in some places because prices go negative during the day, and plants are being curtailed.

We need to build storage, now, even if it's not a silver bullet. And we can't wait for expensive-as-fuck nuclear.

Someone should call me when we decide re-enriching spent nuclear fuel is fine and we can do nuclear waste recycling, actually getting our money's worth. Or when thorium gets good.

My personal opinion conclusion:

  • Nuclear waste is not immediately that concerning for safety, it's the fact we're signing up to store it for longer than recorded history.
  • It's expensive and takes to long to build
  • The technology needed for the energy transition already exists
  • Also agree, that turning off operating nuclear doesn't make sense.

Thanks for reading, looking forward to hearing people's thoughts.

[–] DraughtGlobe@feddit.nl 23 points 6 months ago (14 children)

The waste doesn't pose any danger as long as it's stored securely and doesn't cost that much space. The only downside of the waste is that it needs to be stored forever, but that's a very, very, small price to pay for not destroying the planet..

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (17 children)

Weird how y'all haven't figured it out yet considering Finland has and Germany has had nuclear power plants for longer.

But I suspect it's more of a lack of wanting to do what's needed for storage because 'politics' and boomers than it is because it's not possible.

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Nobody has. Nuclear casks need maintenance for their life time. We haven't invented any kind of nuclear proof forever material that's immune to entropy. And every single one of these solutions people propose have flaws that render the solution not viable so for now we end up storing it all above ground

Everything in life slowly degrades over time and the longer the life span of something the more it degrades. Especially when that contained is filled with something radioactive.

There are lots of people who are justifiably not comfortable expecting a private company to continue a maintenance cycle that brings in zero profit and all costs for a few thousand years without cutting corners. I don't like the idea of the Elon musks being the Smaug of nuclear waste

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I know there's the joke that Finland doesn't exist, but didn't know people like you who took it seriously.

https://yle.fi/a/3-10847558

From 2019. Yes, we've figured out how to store it permanently. The country of 5 million somehow figured out what the hundreds of millions in Germany, USA, and others couldn't.

Or more accurately, actually did it. The solution has been known for awhile.

Also, never said a private company had to do anything - that's just a strawman you brought up.

[–] Forester@yiffit.net -2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

That's basically what Finland is doing, with a few extra steps.

The whole waste thing isn't an unsolved issue, it's purely a political one.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] capital@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (7 children)

The US has a fuckton of space not being occupied by anyone or anything.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Forester@yiffit.net 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (7 children)
[–] Iron_Lynx@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Even better: reprocess the fuel. The linear fuel life time decommissions nuclear fuel as useless while it still has 90-something percent of energy potential left. Having a more cyclical life cycle allows for the spent fuel to be reconstituted into new fuel, and to be used anew. All the waste that does end up being produced is only a fraction of the waste produced in a linear process, and only dangerous on a societal timescale instead of a geological one.

[–] HaywardT@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The places where that is done don't have a great track record.

[–] Iron_Lynx@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

I'm pretty sure France is one of those places and they have an amazing track record.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] HaywardT@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 6 months ago

And uranium mines. Nuclear is an energy transport medium rather than a source. You have large dirty dangerous destructive mining.

[–] Sorgan71@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Nuclear waste is stored in water tanks. Its quite safe there.