Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Jane Doe (janef0421@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 07-Nov-2024 21:51:39 JST Jane Doe

   • Quinn Norton
   • ErgonWolf

   @PenguinJunk @quinn @ErgonWolf There’s no limit on how much nuclear waste can be stored, it just means more facilities need to be built and maintained. Also, a lot of it would be reprocessed once the most economical ores were extracted, so the problem wouldn’t get out of hand.

   • Embed this notice
     Quinn Norton (quinn@social.circl.lu)'s status on Thursday, 07-Nov-2024 21:51:38 JST Quinn Norton

     in reply to

     • ErgonWolf

     @janef0421 @PenguinJunk @ErgonWolf Nuclear makes sense as part of the mix but only as part, and likely one we'd want to spin down over time. not because i'm afraid of nuclear, I actually quite like it, but because it's vastly more expensive and resource intensive than anything else.

   • Embed this notice
     Quinn Norton (quinn@social.circl.lu)'s status on Friday, 08-Nov-2024 03:38:05 JST Quinn Norton

     in reply to

     • ErgonWolf

     @janef0421 @PenguinJunk @ErgonWolf i've seen these numbers and that's occasionally true, especially for places with less good access to offtime power, but mostly it's not. it has a place in the mix, but not an extensive one. the french have the best experience here, and it's been ok, but we import a huge amount from spanish renewables among other things.

     ...the maintenance costs are fucking crushing.

   • Embed this notice
     Jane Doe (janef0421@mastodon.nz)'s status on Friday, 08-Nov-2024 03:38:06 JST Jane Doe

     in reply to

     • Quinn Norton
     • ErgonWolf

     @quinn @PenguinJunk @ErgonWolf Nuclear’s lifetime cost is quite competitive and it uses less material resources than alternatives.