• 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Has there been a scenario where the technology itself is to blame? The contamination aspect of nuclear waste is well known and preventable, if costs are being cut on radioactive waste disposal (or in the case of a certain Japanese power company, ignoring warnings from the government on how to reduce ocean contamination in the event of an earthquake) a nuclear installation’s fate is sealed…

    As far as I can see, the only downsides with nuclear IMO is that it takes multiple decades to decommission a single plant, the environmental impact on that plant’s land in the interim, and the initial cost to build the plant.

    In comparison to Solar it sounds awful, but before solar, nuclear honestly would have made a lot of sense. I think it may even still be worth it in places that have a high demand for constant power generation, since Solar only generates while the sun’s about, and then you’re looking at overnight energy storage with lithium-based batteries, which have their own environmental and humanitarian challenges

      • Uranium3006@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        yeah you can do throium, and there are some compelling reasons to, but uranium is fine enough. anti-nuke isn’t about actual technical enlargements. the anti nukes hate nuclear fusion too