this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
567 points (94.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
638 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
While I don't want to necessarily sign myself up for a debate and I don't think nuclear energy is perfect, I think pound for pound it's a better alternative for large scale power production than fossil fuels. Any issue that nuclear energy has, fossil fuels have as well, and usually worse on a per kWH basis. We've just lived with those ramifications for so long that we're more comfortable dealing with it. A great example is nuclear waste. Yes, it's a problem that needs to be dealt with, but so is coal waste. We just already have infrastructure in place already for coal waste, and coal waste is much more abundant. Per kWH, the nuclear waste generated is on the order of grams while the waste generated by coal power plants per kWH is on the order of kilograms. And coal fired power plants create radioactive waste as well, usually from incidental uranium and thorium, so we already have to take that into account. So yes it's an issue, but the amount of waste that needs to be dealt with is much lower overall.
While I fundamentally agree but you realky downplay nuclear waste, we don't have any way to dispose of that btond theory, just temporary "solutions" and while coal also generates highly toxic waste the "just so few grams" part isn't great if you ask me! Don't get me wrong, in our current situation coal is about the worse wnergy source we can use but atomic power most likely won't be "the future" like almost everyone in that thread claimed ether and if it's just because we don't even have enough urainium supply the world energy consumption for more than a few year. Another fast that really worries me are the rising natural disasters, that's about the only way a modern reactor can truly cause damage and we will need a lot stronger rules around the areas we place those in, a earth quake area like Fukushima for example is a awful place for them! Another argument against it is that the real price of nuclear energy is by FAR higher than any other kind but currently paied by taxes rather than those companies or peoples energy bills and that won't improve considering we have to store the shit for millions of years and don't even know how yet. I am open to arguments on the topic but if all I get are downvotes and "that's not what I read" without any source and no matter what I write that's simply not a community I want to participate in.
Or in short, my unpopular take is that we can call nuclear energy green (nature loves environmentes without humans) calling it sustainable or technology of the future isn't much smarter than bridging with fossile gass when you are far too late to the party already!
Nuclear is sustainable though, we can sustain it for the forseeable future - many generations. Fossil fuels are not sustainable, their supply is more limited and the consequences of pollution too severe.
Nuclear is not renewable, but it is sustainable and not polluting so it fits into the category of "green".
However, nuclear is not quick. Like you say, we're already late to the party when it comes to fixing things. Using money and resources for nuclear over renewables may end up taking longer to get to net zero than just going hard on renewables and transmission first (although the specific circumstances do vary widely by region/nation).
True!
How is the waste of the reactors not considered polution? Especially when you consider that if people would really decide to make a swing for nuclear power there will be a lot more waste.
Doesn’t “pollution” refer to material that is released into the environment? We could make an argument about uranium mining being polluting (because it is), but operating a nuclear plant does not create pollution during operation.
Do you trust every single country / political part on earth to store the waste for thousands of years responsibly and safe?