• InverseParallax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Great, is there a method that eliminates all byproducts of fossil fuels?

    It reduces them dramatically, to something we can easily deal with, that’s huge.

    • funtrek@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      No need for. Solar panels and batteries are at an historically low price and will even become more affordable. There’s simply no economical justification for nuclear energy.

      • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        No need for. Solar panels and batteries are at an historically low price and will even become more affordable. There’s simply no economical justification for nuclear energy.

        How many solar panels and batteries are needed to power every electrical grid on the planet?

        Where do we locate all of the panels and batteries?

        Where do we get all of the materials for all of the panels and batteries?

        What is the total cost to operate and maintain that global power grid?

        What is the lifespan of the grid?

        What happens to all of the panels and batteries at end of life, and how much does it cost?

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          30 days ago

          Exactly. Solar panels and batteries can theoretically be recycled, but we generally don’t bother today, and there’s a lot more bulk in dealing with old panels and batteries than spent nuclear fuel rods.

          So dealing with the waste of nuclear is a more constant thing, but also much lower volume than something like solar panels or batteries.

          I think we need both, but ideally we use something other than batteries for base load supply, and only use it to store excess peak generation (or ideally, use something other than batteries for short-term storage, like hydrogen or hydro pumps).

      • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Firstly, we’ll get there in time.

        Secondly, having baseload vastly reduces the amount of batteries needed, and overall is helpful, and nuclear is one of the best baseloads there is.

        By any logic we should work on fusion research because it’s the actual solution, but the enemy isn’t nuclear or renewables, it’s fossil fuels, they must be killed as brutally as possible, not just for their ecological impact, but also for their political impact, which may be the most toxic of all.

        Imagine the politics of this country if Texas wasn’t “Saudi Oil Money” rich and didn’t try to screw over our politics on a constant basis. They’re the reason we don’t have nuclear already, they’d much rather keep everyone on the dinosaur habit than let us move forward an inch.