this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
306 points (93.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43945 readers
830 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

With climate change looming, it seems so completely backwards to go back to using it again.

Is it coal miners pushing to keep their jobs? Fear of nuclear power? Is purely politically motivated, or are there genuinely people who believe coal is clean?


Edit, I will admit I was ignorant to the usage of coal nowadays.

Now I'm more depressed than when I posted this

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] ErwinLottemann@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

it's not about the power but about the waste. no one wants that in their backyard.

[โ€“] TheHalc@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's been long established that coal produces more radioactive waste than nuclear power, and largely dumps it straight into the environment.

Somehow people think it's worse if you keep it contained rather than massively diluted. If we thought of it like we do radiation in coal waste, we'd be happy to just dump it in the ocean.

Living in Finland, I'm proud of the fact that we've got one of the first long-term/final storage sites for nuclear waste in the world. YIMBY.

[โ€“] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

You guys have that super deep underground storage site right?

[โ€“] MDKAOD@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Real talk, why can't we just launch that shit into the sun? Obviously, I understand the risk of a rocket filled with spent fuel rods exploding is low Earth orbit and the weight to cost ratio, but are there other reasons?

[โ€“] noobdoomguy8658@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's insanely more expensive than any of the other options, even the long-term storage deep down underground with further burial and complete abandonment of the location in a way that would make the location as unremarkable as possible, preventing future generations developing interest to potential markings.

Tom Scott has a great, rather concise video about that. It's not really just ground, but rock, making it even more secure and unaffected, especially given that the waste is first sealen into special containers.

[โ€“] BigNote@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

The waste is vitrified, meaning that it's encased in what's basically solid glass.

[โ€“] intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Basically to put something in the sun youโ€™ve got to bring it to a near-standstill relative to the sun. You have to slow it down from the speed Earth is orbiting at (2 * Pi AU/year) to almost zero. It takes a ton of rocket fuel to do that.

That plus the danger you mentioned makes burying it the cheaper and safer option.

[โ€“] theKalash@feddit.ch 2 points 1 year ago

It's literally easier to launch something outside the solar system than launching it into the sun.