• Astrealix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    I know it’s a damn lot easier than carbon recapture, if we’re talking waste products. It’s not ideal, but there is no such thing as perfect, and we shouldn’t let that be the enemy of good. Nuclear fission power is part of a large group of methods to help us switch off fossil fuels.

    • EMPig@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      “Easier”? Are you aware of the fact that radioactive waste tombs are meant to stand for millions of years? It requres a lot of territory, construction and servance charges, and lots of prays for nothing destructive happens with it in its “infinite” lifetime.

      • Astrealix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Have you tried capturing gas? As difficult as radioactive waste tombs are, they’re easier than containing a specific type of air lol.

        • EMPig@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          10 months ago

          Read about breathing if you want to know how to capture gas. Also, about photosynthesis.

          • Astrealix@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            If you want to buy the land to plant a second Amazon, be my guest. And breathing does the exact opposite of what we want.

            • EMPig@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I’d rather fill land with trees than with radioactive wastes.

              • Astrealix@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                You need a lot, lot more trees. Like several orders of magnitude. And growing trees takes longer than even building a nuclear power plant.

                • Astrealix@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  To be specific, growing the types of trees we would want for such a thing in such an amount that it would deal with the problems we have, assuming we stop growth of CO2 and assuming we stop burning the Amazon, would take around a hundred years.

                  https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/how-to-erase-100-years-carbon-emissions-plant-trees

                  “It could take more than a hundred years to add enough mature forest to get sufficient levels of carbon reduction. Meanwhile 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels are being added to the atmosphere every year, said Glen Peters, research director at Norway’s Center for International Climate Research.”

                  And need an area the size of the United States. I wasn’t joking about a second Amazon.

              • Astrealix@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                I’d rather this as well, but we don’t have that many choices. The slower we act and the more we let perfect be the enemy of good, the more people die.