• Astrealix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year 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
        8
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year 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
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year 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
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

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

            • Astrealix@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year 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.

    • radiosimian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We can bury it in the ground and it will literally turn into lead. How are you doing with carbon emissions? Got a fix?

      • EMPig@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think it’s photosynthesis. ‘Bury in the ground’ is an extreme simplification btw. Also, I am finished with this topic scince long anough. It feels politically biased. If you’d like to reply, I’d hear it gladly. But I m not going to be involved into a discussion.

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Launching radioactive waste into space is a terrible idea, because rockets on occasion crash. Once that happens it becomes a nuclear disaster.

        Instead we can safely store it in depleted mines.

        • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Mines fill up with water if they’re not constantly pumped out. Even the salt mines which seemed like a solution were found to have this issue

            • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Dig a hole, anywhere, there’s a chance it’ll fill with water. Especially with climate change. We’re seeing moisture getting dropped in areas at greater frequencies that didn’t happen decades ago. There’s no guarantee you can dig a hole anywhere on earth that wouldn’t become apart of our aquifers as the water travels back to the ocean.

                • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It isn’t really minimal since the water cycle on earth is all connected.

                  Water in the ocean evaporates. It’s carries inland by Hadley cells that deposit the moisture inland. It gets dumped on the highest points which all run back the ocean and creating all our aquifers along the way. Those aquifers feed our great lakes and wells.

                  But you’re suggesting we bury toxic material that remains toxic for hundreds or thousands of years somewhere remote that would just be high up in that water cycle. In places where private companies would be out of the eyes of watchdog groups

                  • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    that would just be high up in that water cycle. In places where private companies would be out of the eyes of watchdog groups

                    That is not what I am suggesting.

              • p1mrx@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sealing a deep narrow borehole isn’t a difficult problem. The Earth has contained oil and gas underground for millions of years.

                • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Its contained it using geological features but once exposed how is it possible to recreate that. Its also not like this material is goo

                  • p1mrx@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The hole would be 0.5m wide and >1000m deep, backfilled with bentonite clay and concrete. At the bottom, the path curves back upward, so waste is not stored at the bottom.

                    Even if geology doesn’t collapse the hole, it’s hard to imagine material climbing up through 1000m of clogged pipe.

          • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Big hole in the side of mountain in a desert, stick the waste in, full it with rubble and concrete, job done. If some primatives in a hundred thousand years stumble across it and dig it out, fuck em, who cares.