• woelkchen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    This all being said the larger issue is that we CANNOT manage CO2.

    A) Baseless claim.

    B) Alternative to fossil enegery is regnerative, not nuclear power where the entire feasibility study of locking away waste is “trust me bro”.

    • mholiv@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I would argue that the alternative to fossil fuels is “both and”.

      We should use both renewable, nuclear, and other approaches as we develop them. We need to keep an open mind here. Climate change is a major threat.

      You keep on acting like there is no way to manage nuclear waste. Is building out a real and complete storage facility with 100.000 year management plan “trust me bro” in your mind? Because I see it as more than that.

      The Finnish model exists and is well regarded. You can’t just pretend it does not exist.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I would argue that the alternative to fossil fuels is “both and”.

        You argue a lot of things, as long as nuclear waste comes out as totally fine.

        The Finnish model exists and is well regarded.

        Well regarded by nuclear fans, of course. Nobody is denying that. Totally unproven to work because nobody tried it, yet. That thing’s construction isn’t even finished. Check back in 100000 years until making further claims. I’ll revoke my misgivings once it’s proven to work. Until then don’t pile up new waste.