63
Massive Energy Needs of AI & Cryptocurrencies Lead Amazon, Google & Microsoft to Embrace Nuclear Power
(www.democracynow.org)
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
63 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5298 readers
848 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And they are surely paying for the thousands of years of waste storage necessary?
When a radioactive rock is stored in a cave somewhere instead of pumping the atmosphere full of CO2: ๐คฌ๐คฌ๐คฌ
When a radioactive roch is stored in a cave somewhere instead of stopping to produce crypto currencies: ๐คฌ๐คฌ๐คฌ
At least co2 doesn't shoot at me when i get too close /joke
Wouldn't it be an obvious part of the price they will pay for the electricity? The electricity producer or whatever intermediate in charge of the waste, will bill its work for waste storage, and it will end up on the bill of the energy consumer. What am I missing?
You're missing that no one ever invested in nuclear if they didn't expect to socialize storage cost. The premise is completely absurd too โ you can't keep anything safe for over 100k years. There's no way to ensure that people won't dig up rocks, even on a 500-year horizon.
The entire history of humanity is only 300k years long, and our languages as well as our societal systems of organization are much younger.
Long term storage is not supposed to require maintenance over that time, the worry is rather preventing people to dig them up unknowingly in the future. Actually dangerous wastes have way smaller half lives that that.
Ideally. Though you can do a 80s Germany: Find a suboptimal storage site right next to the inner-German border, so as to piss off the other side of the Iron Curtain. Surprisingly, only a few years after you reunite (and it feels so good), except now you have a bunch of contaminated water in your storage site after mere decades.
But quite honestly โ how can you predict the fate of even the "safest" storage site? Will there be a fracking boom near it in the next 200 years? Something other new technology? And in that sense, it really doesn't matter whether half life is 10k years or 100k years.
over half a century of fear mongering from the nuclear industry itself to upsell safety systems