this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2026
57 points (91.3% liked)
Anarchism
3291 readers
126 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
Other anarchist comms
- !anarchism@slrpnk.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- !anarchism@hexbear.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.ml
- !anarchism101@lemmy.ca
- !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
Banner by @Val@anarchist.nexus
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm against nuclear because it's too expensive and there is no proper place to store the depleted material.
There's plenty of places?
And do remember, it's taking what was already a dangerous material, processing it to be less dangerous, and then putting it somewhere safe
Look, I'm pro nuclear power, but the "already dangerous material" is not naturally more dangerous than spent fuel. We concentrate and enrich natural radioactive materials to turn them into nuclear fuel, and in that process make them incredibly dangerous. So yes, nuclear byproducts are less dangerous than e.g. freshly-enriched Uranium, but not than raw ore sitting in the ground, and not mining those ores and enriching them is always a choice that's available. Also, there are byproducts which are not less dangerous, that are created as part of nuclear fission, like iodine-131, which does not occur naturally at all.
Unlike where we store all the CO2, plenty of room for that in our atmosphere.