Data centers, the things that physically store and share applications and data, require an enormous amount of energy to run. These giant storage units, responsible for 1-1.5% of global electricity consumption, have traditionally relied on renewable sources like solar and wind but it seems as though renewable energy just won’t be able to keep up with the demand required moving forward.

  • Goku@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    The problem with nuclear is nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is stored in barrels in caves and buried. It remains radioactive for thousands of years. By creating nuclear waste we are forcing 100 generations after us to live with this nuclear waste. I don’t know all the details but they say it’s “safe.”

    Hard to believe how safe something can be from an inconvenient earthquake or terrorist attack.

    • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Those are talking points from like, weeks after nuclear became a thing. How are people still parroting them to this day???

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        True. Most nuclear waste is contained on the site that created it. It tends only to be moved when the site is decommissioned. Most countries do not have a long term storage plan.

        Hope that updates the talking points the way you were looking for.

    • pizzazz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Funny how everyone is immediately concerned with a few thousands of cubic meters of solid waste that literally loses its harm exponentially quickly and we can store underground while all the billions of tons of toxic liquid and gaseous waste coming from a sleuth of industrial applications (including renewables production) constantly being pumped in the biosphere never get a mention

      • Goku@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I could be wrong but I thought rate of decay was a logarithmic function, not exponential.

        • pizzazz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Rate of decay for a specific isotope is constant, so its abundance decays exponentially. Of course a species can transmute in a new radionuclide so the process in total will not be exactly exponential, but pretty close. Seen on a log scale it’s awfully close to a straight line

      • Goku@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I watched that video, and while I agree that nuclear waste is safer than fossils fuels, there is still a non-zero risk to storing nuclear waste, especially if you consider how long it remains radioactive.

        Would I prefer to live near a nuclear plant or a coal plant? definitely nuclear.

        Wind, solar, and renewables are still cleaner than nuclear.

        Also burying nuclear waste in what that video says:

        [far away from] any geologically active area

        With climate change we are seeing extreme weather events and earthquakes more frequently than expected. Who’s to say that areas which are currently not active won’t become active.

        Don’t get me wrong, I understand renewables are not going to supply all the power we need right now. I realize that nuclear is the cleaner option (comprlared to fossils fuels).

        However, I am still concerned about the nuclear waste. I’m glad they have tight security, and it’s good to know the barrels are missile resistant… But nothing is 100% safe. If a terrorist decides to make one of these sites a target, and they have enough money and influence, I’m sure it’s possible for them to penetrate security and penetrate those barrels.

        Radiation levels are low around the barrels but if contamination occurs that would still be a disaster.