When I first read the titile, I thought that the US is going to have to build A LOT to triple global production. Then it occured to me that the author means the US is pledging to make deals and agreements which enable other countries to build their own. Sometimes I think the US thinks too much of itself and that’s also very much part of American branding.

Where are my renewable bros at? Tell me this is bad.

  • @PeleSpirit
    link
    English
    4
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    deleted by creator

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      special waste management is doing a lot of heavy lifting

      Yeah, I suppose it is. Although I would argue leaving the waste to future generations is definitely not what we’re doing. Basically, we’re just putting it in a deep hole. Once that underground storage is full it never needs to be opened again. There isn’t any shortage of radioactive elements underground that exist naturally, creating a man-made radioactive pocket deep underground isn’t all that different.

      Not having enough power and more power failures isn’t such a bad trade-off

      The power that gets sent out over the grid does a lot more that charging your iPhone or powering your computer. For example: Electric vehicles(including public transit) relies on it, food preservation relies on maintaining constant refrigeration which would lead to even more food waste, and if a hospital loses power for even a couple minutes there are real lives at stake.

    • chaogomu
      link
      fedilink
      -11 year ago

      The absolute worst of the waste is done being waste within about 300 years. I’m talking about the cesium and strontium.

      Everything else that comes out of that reactor can technically go back in as fuel after a little reprocessing/breeding.

      But that’s illegal now due to fearmongering in the 70s.

      About 95% of what comes out of a reactor is uranium. One percent is plutonium. The rest is a mix of cesium, strontium, iodine, xenon, and a mix of trace elements that are there, but decay too fast to even begin to capture.

      I’ve got an old video of the full breakdown. It includes how much those elements sell for in industrial/medical use.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -21 year ago

      We could do the alternative and leave a dead planet to future generations.

      Look, we all agree that renewables are the future but they are still the future. Build nuclear now and we can slowly wean off of that. Nuclear waste is a much more manageable problem than “crops no longer grow”.

      • @PeleSpirit
        link
        English
        4
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        deleted by creator

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -11 year ago

          The problem is that while personal renewables exist, they’re still pretty expensive and are largely untested at scale. We’re in that stage that computers went through in the late 90s, where it’s an expensive investment that is likely to be obsolete before the year is over.

          Not many people would be excited to spend ~$30K outfitting a building with solar panels, turbines and batteries only to learn that they need to be replaced in 2-3 years.

          The technology is promising, but it’s not ready for mass adoption yet. We need a stopgap

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            Agree. I’d wager the average joe would only invest in personal renewables if it was cheaper to run than paying an electric bill in the short term, was just as efficient, and was easy to install. Otherwise we’d be adding even more e-waste to landfills.

          • @PeleSpirit
            link
            English
            1
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            deleted by creator