• @Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -131 year ago

    Yea both are horrible. But we can get off fossil fuels and walk away. We can’t with nuclear. It’ll always be with us and doesn’t solve that we need fossil fuel for other things.

    Jets and ships are still going to need fossil fuels.

    Which is why I think the best thing we could be doing right now is focusing on improving how energy is store. With the right advancement we could solve a lot of these problems with the right battery.

    • @OriginalUsername@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Mercury will always be with us. Arsenic will always be with us. PFAS will always be with us. Natural radiation will always be with us. Fortunately, nuclear waste is easily detectable, the regulations around it are much stronger, the amount of HLW is miniscule and the storage processes are incredibly advanced

      Moreover, most Nuclear waste won’t always be with us. A lot of fission prodcuts have half lives in the decades or centuries

    • Harrison [He/Him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Jets and ships can be nuclear powered. It’s just not a very good idea for jets at least.

        • Harrison [He/Him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          Not hugely. Actual nuclear waste, not just mildly radioactive uniforms and similar material, is extremely small and compact for the amount of energy generated.

          • @Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -11 year ago

            I would say though how much nuclear waste would be acceptable in an aquifer to be an issue. Its great that in relation to the energy produced, its small. But can that small amount still pose a catastrophic risk or not