• itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    Putting highly radioactive waste on a rocket is a bad, bad idea.

    And guess what: solar and wind have neither CO2 nor nuclear waste as a product, and are cheaper to build and operate as well. Nuclear is comically expensive, and only gets by with massive state subsidies

    • TheOtherThyme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      6 months ago

      And guess what: solar and wind canot take care of base load. Only oil, gas, coal, or nuclear can be run 24-7 with varying output in response to demand. Choose one.

      • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        All of that is a solvable problem. We need to modernize the energy grid, because over large distances surplus and demand more easily equalize. Domestic energy consumption is fairly easy to cover with renewables and small to intermediate scale energy storage. The big consumers are heavy industry, and most of that can easily adapt by only running when there’s a surplus. With how cheap renewables are, they’d likely even save money in such a scenario

      • Forester@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Sir, this is an emotional argument. Begone with your facts and logic.

          • Forester@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Pumped hydro storage requires massive dams to be constructed and massive amounts of habitat to be turned into artificial lakes. Also, we literally don’t have enough water for that to be viable anywhere but the coasts