350
submitted 1 year ago by lntl@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

When I first read the titile, I thought that the US is going to have to build A LOT to triple global production. Then it occured to me that the author means the US is pledging to make deals and agreements which enable other countries to build their own. Sometimes I think the US thinks too much of itself and that's also very much part of American branding.

Where are my renewable bros at? Tell me this is bad.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] averyminya@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Regarding waste; nuclear waste can be turned into diamond batteries.

If they manage to release, the idea is that small cell batteries can self-recharge themselves practically forever (20,000ish years?). Battery dead? Remove it, swap it, wait. Battery dead? Insert the one you removed previously, the Uranium inside replenished the charge.

Neat stuff given that it is made from waste byproduct.

[-] BaumGeist@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

That's cool as fuck! Now, how do we implement it?

I should have been a little more clear: I'm not worried about a lack of ways to properly neutralize and dispose of the waste, I'm concerned that they will not be implemented because they are deemed unprofitable.

Already the U.S. runs nuclear power, and yet we still haven't implemented waste recycling (as of 2022 iirc the article I read); why? Presumably because ultimately it does not serve the interest of capital. So get plans to create that infrastructure into effect, and I'll get on board with any expansion. Until that happens, it's just hopping on the dick of this new tech because it's bleeding edge and assuming the infrastructure to handle it will follow (which has worked so well for e-waste and cars and fossil fuels and plastics and...)

Not that sticking to fossil fuels in the meantime is a better alternative. We should focus on energy production that doesn't have the potential to immediately kill us should the waste-containment fail: solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric. Hell, we already have stockpiles of a majorly combustible fluid that requires an ever-increasing amount of energy to harvest, why not exchange it for one that doesn't also cause biosphere collapse as a side-effect: Hydrogen?

None of these are environmentally friendly either, and so I'd still prefer to see nuclear in the long run instead. Strip-mining Uranium is still better than the massive amount of mining needed to get the rare metals necessary for solar at large scales, wind farms are destructive to local wildlife, hydrogen can explode and needs a constant source of water to produce while requiring a way to dispose of all the sediment generated, dams and massive water reservoirs are a blight on the landscape and disrupt entire ecosystems; I have no clue how geothermal is even harvested, but if the other renewables are anything to go by...

this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
350 points (93.3% liked)

World News

32327 readers
475 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS