880

Anon questions our energy sector (slrpnk.net)

submitted 1 day ago by MataVatnik@lemmy.world to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

334 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[-] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 12 hours ago

Anon is dumb. Anon forgets the nuclear waste. Anon also forgets that the plants for the magical rocks are extremely expensive. So much that energy won by these rocks is more expensive than wind energy and any other renewable.

[-] uis@lemm.ee 10 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Anon forgets the nuclear waste.

Nuclear waste is pretty tame. Compare gloves that were used once to turn valve on pipe in reactor room to shit from coal in your lungs. Even most active kind of waste everyone thinks of - spent fuel - consists from about 90% of useful material.

EDIT: 95-98% of useful material.

Anon also forgets that the plants for the magical rocks are extremely expensive.

Actually not. Especially cost of energy compared to one of coal.

[-] Asetru@feddit.org 1 points 4 hours ago

What nonsense is this?

Compare gloves that were used once to turn valve on pipe in reactor room to shit from coal in your lungs.

No shit, Sherlock... The reactor room is shielded by the water. Something you had in there once shouldn't be overly radioactive and the fact that it isn't doesn't say anything about the dangers of radioactive waste.

Even most active kind of waste everyone thinks of - spent fuel - consists from about 90% of useful material.

What does that even mean? How is that saying anything about the dangers of radioactive waste?

Actually not.

Actually yes.

new nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh [...]. Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated [...].

[-] uis@lemm.ee 1 points 3 hours ago

Something you had in there once shouldn't be overly radioactive

It still counts as radioactive waste. It was example of something regular people don't associate radioactive waste with, but still counts as one.

Something you had in there once shouldn't be overly radioactive and the fact that it isn't doesn't say anything about the dangers of radioactive waste.

"This waste shouldn't be overly dangerous and the fact that it isn't doesn't say how dangerous it is". Wow. How did you do this?

What does that even mean? How is that saying anything about the dangers of radioactive waste?

Did you read what I write?

I will rephrase you:

What does that even mean? How is that saying anything about the amount of radioactive waste?

[-] Asetru@feddit.org 1 points 3 hours ago

"This waste shouldn't be overly dangerous and the fact that it isn't doesn't say how dangerous it is". Wow. How did you do this?

Here I thought you're just slow and didn't read what I wrote so I was already preparing to just explain what I said.

What does that even mean? How is that saying anything about the dangers of radioactive waste?

Did you read what I write?

I will rephrase you:

What does that even mean? How is that saying anything about the amount of radioactive waste?

This is where I realised you're just trolling.