Particularly nuclear fusion, which doesn’t generate long-lived radioactive isotopes as byproducts of energy production. Nuclear fission still has a place to be sure, but once we crack the dilemmas with fusion all bets are off when it comes to generating huge amounts of clean energy.

[–] Rolder@reddthat.com 23 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Fission gets a bad rap. The amount of waste it produces is minuscule compared to the amount of waste generated by fossil fuels, and it’s generally easier to deal with too. Just needs actual proper maintenance and care.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

People acting like coal isn't radioactive or extremely toxic for everyone around

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't think there are too many people arguing against fission who are in favour of coal

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You say that but that's practically Australia in a nutshell, nuclear is explicitly banned for the purposes of energy production

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The coal plants are decommissioning due to costs, renewable energy is booming, and (obviously due to the ban) there is no local nuclear industry or expertise. Even if you manage to lift the ban, which nobody is trying to do*, nuclear would not be replacing coal plants here, but might divert renewable funding. In other countries I have no doubt building more nuclear could offset coal, not here.

* The coalition claims to be in favour of nuclear power, but they've spruiked it before in opposition, and nothing gets tabled when they're in power. It's got as much chance of happening as high speed rail.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Any idea what fraction of our total power consumed is from renewables?

[–] trk@aussie.zone 3 points 7 months ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Australia

In 2021, Australia's electricity production reached 265 TWh, with coal accounting for 52.9% and natural gas for 18.8%. Renewable sources, comprising solar, wind, hydro, and bioenergy with waste, collectively made up 26.7% of the total electricity generation mix

If you want to get excited though, check the rapid rise of renewables.

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Biggest and just about onliest problem with nuclear fission is how expensive it is to set it up, both in terms of time and money.

Edit: typo

[–] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Besides, we can always just call in Godzilla to eat up the radiation

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Fun fact, there are over 5 billion tons of naturally occurring uranium dissolved in the ocean.

[–] Deconceptualist@lemm.ee 21 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It warms one small part of the planet by about 100 million degrees.

[–] MrJukes@lemmy.today 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It really throws off the average though

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Temperature is an average

[–] JamesTBagg@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Climate is an average, temperature is instant.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Temperature is the average measure of kinetic energy across all the matter in the sample

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago

No.

[–] AToM_exe@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Hopefully it will contribute to warm up everyones home one day.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

Testing and stuff probably does by a tiny fraction, because they need to use insane amounts of power to get it started which is probably produced by coal/oil.

But once it's actually working and producing more power than it consumes it will be the best solution to stopping greenhouse gases for energy production. It would be the end of gas/oil/coal in the energy sector. Probably wouldn't even need to use solar or wind anymore.