this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
657 points (69.6% liked)

Memes

45707 readers
1992 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
 
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) (17 children)

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 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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)