this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2165 points (94.4% liked)

World News

39032 readers
2640 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vivadanang@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

tiny, teeny fractions of it have been experimented with, both for re-enrichment and also as raw fuel for other reactor types. No one's running a waste-powered reactor atm.

"Approximately 97% – the vast majority (~94%) being uranium – of it could be used as fuel in certain types of reactor. "

could be. after processing that itself results in waste. and note that other caveat - in certain types of reactor. as in reactors specifically configured to run on recycled fuel. this is not the panacea you assume.

[–] SouthEndSunset@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn’t assume anything, and I didn’t say it was perfect. I’ve just read up on it and said it’s a possibility. If that 97% turns out to be accurate, that’s good. Hugely better than coal or gas, and makes it a possible alternative to other green energy production methods. Which also arent perfect.

[–] vivadanang@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I've spent a lot of time around the nuclear industry. I think it's better baseband power than fossil fuels. if I could flip a switch tomorrow and all the plants that had been built through the 90s were still going, sure, I'd love that route. Too many of those are gone. But thankfully solar and wind have become so ridiculously cheap at scale and deployable ready that arguing for a new investment in nuclear plants is hard to justify, especially conventional steam powered setups we've become used to. Bring in SMRs, but know those smaller setups can serve less and still generate the same kind of waste. Bring on breeder reactors that can run off other reactor's waste output! But again know there will be radioisotope waste in some part of the pipeline. Molten salt closed loop setups for sure. But at six billion plus per unit, no, build solar and wind on gigantic scales please. Refurb and keep the old plants running, but don't pursue a large nuclear component moving forward.

YMMV. We'll need everyone to work together if we're going to get our asses out of this shit. World wide, and coordinated.

lol looks like the right wingers finally got the one-world government they always feared... if they had only listened to Al Gore lol....

[–] SouthEndSunset@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Actually that was really well written. Cheers.

One question though, something else I keep reading is that the blades for wind power can’t be recycled. Is this just bollocks being pushed by people that want nuclear power?