Solar modules deployed in France in 1992 still provide 75.9% of original output power - eviltoast
  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    All of the infrastructure for transporting nuclear waste already exists for transporting the existing nuclear waste.

    Realistically it’s the only viable long-term option it’s infinitely better than fossil fuels and Fusion power would be nice but doesn’t exist yet at least not outside of a lab and I don’t think even in the lab particularly efficient.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Realistically it’s the only viable long-term option

      No, it isn’t. Solar+wind+storage will do fine.

      Fusion power would be nice but doesn’t exist yet at least not outside of a lab and I don’t think even in the lab particularly efficient.

      And the fact that you word things this way makes it pretty clear to me you have no idea what you’re talking about and haven’t actually researched anything about it.

      • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Solar and wind are just different ways of capturing energy from a fusion reaction (Sol), but down the line after much of the energy is diffused. If we can replicate that reaction here, every cent and second spent on solar panels is the equivalent of buying watered down drinks at a bar instead of drinking straight from the still. Until we can replicate fusion, fission is still far better than any fossil fuel and more stable than water/wind. The problems are people, not the rocks that heat up