631
E-waste is growing 5x faster than it's recycled, says UN
(www.theregister.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
631 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
59346 readers
5183 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
How are we even supposed to know what's right anymore? Am I supposed to vote for the solar or the nuclear fanatics? I just wanna save the fucking climate, what should I do?
Edit: I'm sorry if this isn't phrased clearly, but what I mean to say is "solar fanatics or nuclear fanatics", implying that I feel right in the middle between the to and just want to make the right choice. People are arguing loudly from both sides.
Nuclear, preferably fusion works out and energy becomes a non-issue. But nothing else we have can beat the reliability, energy density and power-to-emissions ratio of nuclear.
I'm very sick of hearing about nuclear from Reddit/lemmy. If it was a realistic, affordable solution we'd be doing it. But it's not. It just seems like it is to the layman.
There's a reason the market and governments went all in on renewables and it isn't just paranoia about nuclear accidents. Building a nuclear plant takes ten years minimum and it's incredibly expensive, and has a lower margin for profit. In that amount of time governments/companies can build tens of thousands of renewable energy stations.
The issue of waste from solar is real, but the fact is even with that waste it's done far more to reduce emissions than nuclear ever has or ever could.
No, if it wasn't lobbied against and fearmongered by oil and coal, public sentiment would support it and funding would go along with it. If you think it's cheaper to throw massive solar panels into every open field and that we'd get anywhere approaching the energy a nuclear power plant could produce then you've lost the plot.
Yes it is.
The energy output offsets the cost faster than alternatives and if we started ten years ago we'd have them by now. Not starting right now because you think it's too late is the reason they weren't built a decade ago. Some kind of fuckin reverse sunk cost fallacy with you people. Also, ten years minimum? Some have been built in three years.
Dumbest shit you've said in this post so I'm glad you left it till last. Since 1971 Nuclear Power is estimated to have prevented 64 trillion gigatons of carbon emissions. To put it into perspective, that's the amount the United States would generate if we powered ourselves completely with coal for 35 years. The positive climate impact of nuclear is so incomprehensibly superior to renewables that your stance against it isn't just stupid - it's costing lives.
It’s hilarious how utterly delusional you are lol. Yeah you go ahead and keep telling yourself that an oil industry conspiracy is pushing renewables over nuclear and not the fundamental economics of the situation. Nuclear isn’t and never will be a realistic solution to climate change.
Also— your own article states that the fastest nuclear reactors were built in Japan. Well guess what, that’s bizarr because Japan skirted all kinds of safety practices to build their reactors and that’s how you get garbage plants like Fukushima. All of the new reactors getting built now are planned for ten years or more, which your article also confirms.
And no, you are blatantly wrong that only paranoia is getting in the way of nuclear. Countries aren’t building nuclear because it makes no fucking sense when you can generate the same amount of power for far cheaper with renewables. Renewables are also serving as the baseline power source all around the world and they do the job just fine. Nuclear isn’t needed.
It’s obvious you’re just another rude, know-it-all douchebag who is actually far more ignorant on this topic than you realize. Straight to my blocked list.
I've long since lost patience with idiots, especially ones that resort to blocking when they're wrong. Take care o/
Ought from an is. Basic fallacy.
No. France built many in half that length of time. It does have a low profit margin because it is the only energy source that fully captures it's external costs. Your solar power is only possible because the cells are "recycled" in places where they don't give a fuck.
I want a citation of that. And given that nuclear power is seven decades old very much good luck with that.
Well, the 'nuclear fanatics' are probably the best bet for actually saving the climate. The energy to waste ratio makes renewable energy look like a squirt gun compared to a fire hose. Even including the nuclear disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima, renewable energy is more dangerous to human life.
If you care to learn in video format, Kyle Hill has done an invaluable service illustrating very important things about nuclear energy.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Kyle Hill
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Are you volunteering your basement as storage location for nuclear waste? It's funny how the biggest nuclear proponents are usually the ones who scream the loudest when their region is target for a geological survey for a possible storage location.
Yes, absolutely. Kyle hill has many videos. One where he's kissing a barrel of nuclear waste. You have a very outdated idea of what modern nuclear energy is and I highly suggest actually clicking the link I provided.
It's funny how the people who rally the hardest against nuclear have no fucking idea what it is beyond the disasters.
Then go to your politicians and do. Talk is cheap.
I can't literally put them in my basement, Fred. They're in my state already and I support them existing. What do you want from me?
Apparently you're the minority. That's good.
Or maybe you are just wrong
So "That’s good" is a wrong statement? OK then.
No maybe your argument that people who advocate for nuclear power aren't the ones who scream loudly when a waste site is by their home is wrong.
I don't know who Fred is but I appreciate that you're in the minority that doesn't scream against storage locations. That's why I wrote "That’s good."
Called you Fred in place of friend or bud so it doesn't sound as condescending.
I misunderstood your comment then as "I'm glad you're in the minority of states/people who approve the use of nuclear material for reactors" rather than "I appreciate that you're in the minority of people who support nuclear and are comfortable being near storage locations."
Didn't expect the tone shift, so that one's on me.
The politicians who are owned by fossil fuel companies?
One person writing to their politician isn't worth the trash can space the letter will end up in. We need to have a majority of people supporting smart energy decisions, and that starts with telling people that their opinions on nuclear energy are 50 years out of date.
I have. I also offered to have a weed store move "nextdoor to me" since they kept on bringing it up during the debates years ago. Even sent them my address and the address of the empty building next door so they would know exactly where to put a legal dispensary.
It didn't happen but that might be for the best. Maybe I should have to walk a few minutes to get cannabis instead of walking nextdoor.
Now that I have fulfilled your requirements I am sure you will be retracting your statement....any time now.
Yes I am volunteering my basement for that. Being literal. If you really think my basement is the best place you are welcome to pay me off to use it. I await you to put your money where your mouth is.
Citation needed. I want the names of ten people who match your criteria and decibel levels.
https://youtu.be/rxbq9ff8CH8?t=1573
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/rxbq9ff8CH8?t=1573
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I don't click random YouTube vids. I want a citation in a journal peer-reviewed
Nuclear. Go ahead and call me a fantic or whatever you want, I am sure I have been called worse. Renewables in anything resembling a near timeline aren't up fro the task and we should have started decades ago.
It is one of the depressing things about tech. We often know the exact solution and convince ourselves that it won't work.
Always vote for the futuristic sci Fi energy sources