305
'Limitless' energy: how floating solar panels near the equator could power future population hotspots
(theconversation.com)
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
305 points (93.7% liked)
Technology
59370 readers
3365 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We need renewable energy sources that can be quickly made. We simply don't have the time, during a period where climate change is in full swing, to make nuclear plants.
Plus, it's better safe than sorry in the long run. Did you forget what happened in Chernobyl? If that happened in America, it'd be catastrophic. In Chernobyl, they've still got to build something over the destroyed remains, for years to come and it's very costly. The surrounding areas is still radioactive.
We can rebuild those panels faster than we could put yet another concrete dome over radioactive waste. Which by the way, we don't do a good job handling things like trash and recycling. What makes you think we're capable of dealing with radioactive waste?
But you know, pro-nuclear people, I'd be keen in knowing how you'd handle the event such a meltdown would occur? I can already hear the crickets from here.
Minor correction, but I learned they actually slipped a metal dome over the current concrete one because it was unstable and falling apart. And they plan in the future to dismantle the fourth reactor while possibly restarting the other three reactors. Not a good idea, but still.
You're either uneducated or a bad faith debater, or German.
https://www.reuters.com/world/unsealed-soviet-archives-reveal-cover-ups-chernobyl-plant-before-disaster-2021-04-26/
Chernobyl was a major disaster because it was Soviet crap that wasn't well regulated or maintained.
https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-preventable-pub-47361
Same with Fukushima. Wasn't kept up to international standards for nuclear prevention. The tsunami wall was also considered inadequate at the time it was made.
Nuclear power is incredibly safe when done right, and incredibly powerful. The efficiency of nuclear power is unmatched. If the Jimmy Carter era policy of not reusing nuclear power (which is also safe but less efficient) you have effectively reduced nuclear waste that needs to be removed to an insubstantial amount. We even have an entire MOUNTAIN hollowed out to store nuclear waste.
Overall, when done right, nuclear power is safe and efficient, more efficient than any other renewable out there, and don't fret, I know nuclear power isn't technically renewable, just recyclable, but we have do much nuclear energy it's insane not to use it.
Just by your opening line alone, tells me that you're a bad faith debater. Grow up and learn how arguing works instead of being childish about it.
Not being childish about it, but that line makes me lean towards you being German. I see no sources or anything from your end, which means it's probably speculative or just untrue.
by what metric? because it certainly isnt cost/mw or how quick they are to deploy