this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2024
873 points (95.5% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

27176 readers
3970 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Totally totally no downsides.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What downsides are you concerned about

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Proliferation. Nuclear waste. Long term storage of said waste. Dependence on raw materials that are only available in a few places. Lack of economic viability. Lack of clear timelines for development of new technologies. Monopolistic practices of proprietors. To name just the most important ones. Oh, and the old blowy uppy thing, of course.

[–] azulavoir 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Existing crude power is worse at most of these

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] azulavoir 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

People arguing against nuclear power for it's cost and unclear timeline usually don't argue for coal, oil and gas.
Wind and solar are cheaper, continue to get cheaper and can be built within years, not decades.

Also, renewables are a proven technology while proposals for new nuclear reactor tech have usually never been deployed successfully (as in running continuously and actually contributing to the grid).

[–] azulavoir 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh yeah absolutely.

But every argument against nuclear applies to the crude trio too, and I have heard people saying to specifically keep the status quo over nuclear power...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Oh I agree. Keeping the status quo is a terrible idea and will get increasingly more expensive (as in increased likelihood for extreme weather events which are bad for health, food, infrastructur, ...).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Nuclear waste. Long term storage of said waste

Solved issue, caskets can be stored above ground and take up very little space, buried if it starts to take up too much surface space

Dependence on raw materials that are only available in a few places

Thorium rather than uranium fuel solves this

Lack of economic viability

Just not true

Lack of clear timelines for development of new technologies

Also not true

Oh, and the old blowy uppy thing, of course.

Seriously not an issue these days, we don't build them and run them like the Soviet Union did anymore

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I didn't watch the whole thing but his dismissal of uranium 233 as "hard" to turn into a bomb is flat out wrong. It has many of the properties of plutonium 239 and would be perfectly fine for an implosion fusion/fission device. You just need to chemically reprocess the fuel from a reactor to get it, just like they did with plutonium. The first Soviet fusion bomb was uranium 233 instead of plutonium for christ sakes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If you think nuclear waste is a "solved issue" you just show how little you understand the subject matter. So you're going to store nuclear waste above ground for a couple of millennia? How's that going to work out? And thorium reactors might some day become a viable technology. But that is at best decades away. That is not a solution for any present day problem. And what about all those old and aging legacy reactors that are being kept running beyond their design lifespan? Surely nothing can go wrong there.

But it doesn't matter. Despite all the irrational exuberance of the nukebros it's just not going to happen. The economics were never there and still aren't.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So you're going to store nuclear waste above ground for a couple of millennia?

Literally yes, it's not just left out in the open air, they're stored in specialized containers that use inert gas and concrete to block the radiation from getting out. They can also then be buried beneath the ground for extra protection

And thorium reactors might some day become a viable technology. But that is at best decades away.

It is most certainly not decades away at best unless fear mongering managed to slow research more than it already has done, but that's not an issue with the technology at all

And what about all those old and aging legacy reactors that are being kept running beyond their design lifespan? Surely nothing can go wrong there.

You update them, which is how they're operating beyond their initial designed lifespan. Current idea in the field is to replace aging uranium reactors with molten thorium as they're apparently pretty simple to convert over

To quote you on this topic:

you just show how little you understand the subject matter

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You're telling me humanity will able to manage nuclear waste for hundreds to thousands of years, given the fall of multiple great societies over the last few thousand years?

It's not even a solved problem how to communicate danger with signs[1], and you think knowledge about where nuclear waste is being stored will be preserved for a thousand years?

I really envy you for your optimism in humanity.

[1] https://youtu.be/lOEqzt36JEM

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You're telling me humanity will able to manage nuclear waste for hundreds to thousands of years

You put it in a hole, done. Humanity is capable of that, for sure

It's not even a solved problem how to communicate danger with signs

We won't ever know if it is/can be, due to not ever knowing what future societiesoght perceive. We're doing our best, and can rightfully assume even a fully wiped humanity will learn to stay away from things with our warning symbols on them after a few die from radiation, if that even occurs

You can also pour shit tons of concrete and other stuff around it to make it clear even without signs that something you do not want is in here

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You put it in a hole, done. Humanity is capable of that, for sure

Looking at the discussion where this hole should be doesn't give me confidence. Everyone wants long term storage, but no one wants it near themselves.

We're producing nuclear waste for half a century and there's still no long term storage location. The generation who created this early waste is currently dying away and I don't think the generation after wants to deal with the problem either.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Everyone wants long term storage, but no one wants it near themselves.

Because of fear mongering, it is not dangerous to stick it in a hole and be done with it

The generation who created this early waste is currently dying away and I don't think the generation after wants to deal with the problem either

Its not a problem