662
submitted 4 months ago by spicytuna62@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] then_three_more@lemmy.world 55 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Just because it's safe doesn't mean it's the best we have right now.

  • It's massively expensive to set up
  • It's massively expensive to decommission at end of life
  • Almost half of the fuel you need to run them comes from a country dangerously close to Russia. (This one is slightly less of a thing now that Russia has bogged itself down in Ukraine)
  • It takes a long time to set up.
  • It has an image problem.

A combination of solar, wind, wave, tidal, more traditional hydro and geothermal (most of the cost with this is digging the holes. We've got a lot of deep old mines that can be repurposed) can easily be built to over capacity and or alongside adequate storage is the best solution in the here and now.

[-] Philosofuel@futurology.today 10 points 4 months ago

I would like to add, that though we have the means to store the radioactive waste safely, it's not done properly in many places. So it's also an organizational challenge.

[-] bmarinov@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Storage is not easy when you don't have massive amounts of free land. This is an ongoing debate in Europe, and in one particular country a leaky storage was discovered just a month or two ago. Again.

And there is no guarantee that what we build today is not going to be a massive liability in 50 or 200 or hell, 500 years. But the companies and people who are responsible will not even exist at this point.

load more comments (15 replies)
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
662 points (69.5% liked)

Memes

45660 readers
712 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS