this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
657 points (69.5% liked)

Memes

45726 readers
882 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
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Because we need the baseload, even a huge wind or solar farm can provide the stable baseload.

In my first comment, I suggested that we would build a facility large enough to handle global nuclear waste.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

yeah, I get it, you're whole hog on it, the enthusiasm comes through loud and clear.

I don't agree, but there's no amount of sense that's going to sway the already decided.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I feel the exact way about you in this thread.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

nothing, not a single thing you've argued, will in any way reduce the radioactive leftovers nuclear reactors produce and most of the world is putting off for the next generation to fix.

Like climate change.

How many crises do you think those poor kids are going to be able to manage at once?

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Which crisis is the most important to manage in the short term.

Climate change, nuclear power gives us a huge tool to deal with it by shutting down fossil furl plants.

If we fail the climate change, the nuclear waste will be a tiny problem to deal with.

With nuclear power we at least give people a problem they can deal with, climate change is far, far worse.

The ammount of radioactive waste is tiny relative to normal dumps, and as described before, it is easy to deal with, dig a deep hole, put the waste in it, refill it.

Boom problem solved.

CO2 from fossil plats will keep up climate change for centuries.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I am very confused now, you link to articles talking about storage pool issues, but I never mentioned storage pools.

I am talking about what they are doing in Finland.

They have drilled a very deep hole in the bedrock, built vaults where they will put cey casks of nuclear waste, then they will backfill the hole and tunnels with clay.

This is how you do it.

No one considers a storage pool as permanent storage.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

THE WORLD IS NOT FINLAND.

Unless you're volunteering to take the world's radioactive waste, stop thinking the world is finland, jfc you're worse than an american

And yeah, storage pools WORLDWIDE are being used as defacto permanent storage. That's what you call it when you have no plan to move the shit.

gonna block you now, you're either too dense to realize there's a whole world outside your tiny country, or deliberately obtuse.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Since the start of this thread I have been advocating for building a facility here in Scandinavia to permanently store all nuclear waste globally.

At least TRY to read my posts before whining uselessly!