3 ms·
Also the million year commitment to storing trash. Globally building nuclear power plants will be too slow to solve climate change. We still should keep it to
by allendoerfer 5y ago
Also the million year commitment to storing trash.
Globally building nuclear power plants will be too slow to solve climate change. We still should keep it to solve future problems. Like conquering the universe and stuff.
- bottled_poe 5y agoThere's a fine garbage dump in the centre of the solar system.
- Akronymus 5y agoNo, the sun isn't viable at all for waste. It'd take an unreasonable amount of fuel for that, https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=43694&t=launching-a-rocket-to-the-sun https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=43694&t=l... Along with that, we have enough geographically stable regions for long enough storage.
- bottled_poe 5y agoThe premise is probably true, but that article measures the cost in dollars, not energy units. Im not yet convinced it’s a net negative.
- Akronymus 5y ago> million year commitment to storing trash. Hardly. Most of it decays quite fast. (think tens of years to get below backround radioactivity) While there is some extremely long lived radioactive waste, it is, quite frankly, miniscule in the amount.
- Ekaros 5y agoRadioactive stuff is kinda interesting. Longer it is active less it produces radiation, more it produces faster it breaks down... Ofc, it is not that clear cut as power of radiation differs. It is just that I wouldn't be too worried about properly stabilised long lived waste. Just like I'm not too worried about natural uranium...
- horns4lyfe 5y agoAs opposed to the million year commitment of having an ever-growing number of giant metal windmills mar the landscape?