Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Dec-2024 23:41:29 JST 翠星石

   • sidereal
   • Information Is Beautiful
   @sidereal @infobeautiful >it is always daytime somewhere on earth and we have technology for long distance power transmission.
   Even the longest achieved HVDC run so far is nowhere near the length required to span the Earth.
   
   Taking a rough guess, the voltages required to have an acceptable rate off loss for such a run would require much better insulators than what we currently have.
   
   >other methods of electrical generation are also very polluting
   Nuclear is far less polluting (it actually cleans up radioactive substances that are polluting the environment via removal) and it can supply power 24/7 provided multiple reactors that stagger their maintenance.
   
   But that can't be allowed, because once a know highly defective reactor was operated totally wrong and another time nobody took a glance at the tsunami record and noted that the seawall be high enough (there was a rector not far down the coast with a high enough seawall, as someone looked at the tsunami record that was totally fine).
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 19:21:38 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • sidereal
     • rugk
     • Information Is Beautiful
     @rugk @sidereal @infobeautiful >How doe nuclear clean up anything?
     Uranium is either open-pit mined or leached.
     
     Mining it does do some damage to land, but it has a much, much higher energy density than coal, thus even pit mining it is much less damaging than coal.
     
     The mined radioactive uranium no longer contaminates the ground.
     
     >the result is highly toxic for maybe 1000th of years to come
     Radioactivity is not toxicity.
     
     Hot isotopes tend to have short half lifes and thus decay quickly.
     
     Slightly used neuron poisoned fuel can be reprocessed again and again until there's nothing left, but that's more expensive than mining fresh uranium.
     
     >no one knows how to store it that long in a safe way. (neither does anyone want to store it)
     That is an easy to solve, but politics always gets in the way.
     
     You just find a tectonically stable location, dug a deep hole, throw the slightly used fuel in and fill the hole back up and problem solved - but we can't allow that can we?
     
     Or do it the USA way and throw the lead barrels into the middle of the ocean and nothing will happen.
     
     Assign me a GNU state and I'd gladly welcome anyone who wants to drill a hole and dump their slightly used fuel.
   • Embed this notice
     rugk (rugk@chaos.social)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 19:21:39 JST rugk

     in reply to

     • sidereal
     • Information Is Beautiful

     @Suiseiseki
     How doe nuclear clean up anything? I mean it's not like you dig and are preprocessing stuff (Uran in some Isotope) and the result is highly toxic for maybe 1000th of years to come and no one knows how to store it that long in a safe way. (neither does anyone want to store it)

     And let's not talk about the cost (as in price) of nuclear reactors…
     @sidereal @infobeautiful

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 02-Jan-2025 19:27:17 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • sidereal
     • rugk
     • Information Is Beautiful
     @rugk @infobeautiful @sidereal >let's not talk about the cost (as in price) of nuclear reactors…
     Yes, the price has been massively increased over what it could be while remaining just as safe, due to politics.
     
     Nuclear has the smallest environmental effect per GW, which I consider more important that being a bit more expensive than other generations methods.