this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
513 points (97.8% liked)

World News

39004 readers
2752 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

The good reason is cost externalities. Nuclear is the only power source that deals with its own waste. No one demands the solar industry recycle their stuff for free or that they pay a carbon tax for the trees that don't exist because of the panels in the space. Same for wind but add on the birds killed. Same for hydro but the fish killed. Same for coal but add all of us killed.

We all subsidize the waste disposal of the other power sources. Coal gets to dump all that stuff in the air and our collective resource is that much lowered in quality.

Change the market conditions to reflect the true cost and nuclear comes out on top. Even the CO2 used to make the plants is laughably small when you consider that the plants can last over 50 years while solar has to be almost completely replaced in 15.

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Who do you think is paying for the Yucca Mountain facility?

[–] elephantium@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

What facility?

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

Who do you think paid the banks all that money to keep housing artificially high? Who do you think have GM all that money to make oversized trucks?

Noticed you didn't mention all the costs inside of the plant to deal with the waste nor the transportation costs to Yucca.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 10 months ago

It deals with its own waste by leaving it sitting in a big pit. That's not a viable long term strategy. It needs to go to a central facility to be buried for 100k years, or (my preference) recycled in other reactors designed to do that. Neither is being done right now in the US, and both would almost certainly require public subsidies.