• DrunkenPirate
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Try to dismantle a nuclear plant. It costs tons of money and time. Ask the people at Nagasaki or Tschernobyl.

    Dismantle a coal power plant takes time, but one can reuse the iron and such. All the open mining fields and mining tunnels are the problem. In Western Germany, there are areas where house crack or cars fall down sudden openings caused by old mining tunnels.

    Try to dismantle at wind mill or solar fields. It’s a quest of days and some bucks.

    I prefer the easy way of living. So, my favorite are renewables.

    • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      You dismantled your plants because dismantling your plants is hard? 🤔 That seems backwards. Why not upgrade? Then you never have to dismantle. Keep it alive forever.

      • AgentRocket
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Upgrading would have cost way more. one of the reasons atom power is so expensive (without government subsidies) is the cost of the plants which needs to be recouped as well as the price of the uranium. not to mention that we haven’t found a suitable place to store the waste for those thousands of years until it’s harmless.

    • Dr. Quadragon ❌@mastodon.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      @DrunkenPirate

      > I prefer the easy way of living.

      There is no such thing as “easy way of living”.

      Renewables suck at energy density, predictability and control.

      Nuclear gives you all three.

      Also, look into the solar panel manufacturing costs to the environment.

      Of course, renewables are a must. But by dismantling nuclear you kneecapped yourselves, guys, big time.

      @dragonfucker

        • Dr. Quadragon ❌@mastodon.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          @DrunkenPirate I’d accept this argument if it were still 1950s.

          The year is 2024. Now we know better what to do with nuclear waste.

          First, it’s actually crazy recyclable. You can separate plutonium and unreacted uranium from fission products and use it again, making your fuel cycle way more efficient.

          Second, you don’t actually need to store the leftover fission products in an on-ground dump, that’s actually mighty dumb. Instead, the borehole disposal can be used. Basically, drill a hole several kilometers deep - that’s easy enough when you take the drilling equipment from all those oil barons - put your fission products in there (they’re quite compact by volume, if you separate it out) and then seal the hole with concrete. Nobody’s going to dig this up ever again. It’s a solved problem.

          Cleaning up sites like Sellafield is just dealing with the wartime legacy, when nuclear research was less about energy production, and more about bombs. It doesn’t have to be this way.

          • DrunkenPirate
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Still, we have to manage the waste of former years. Needs money for ages.

            • Dr. Quadragon ❌@mastodon.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              @DrunkenPirate It won’t stop needing money even if you ditch nuclear and go back to coal.

              Ditching nuclear however would mean that it’s all in vain.

              Crying over spilled milk is counterproductive.