Asklemmy

43892 readers

922 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

323

Why has the world started to mine coal again? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

310 comments fedilink hide all child comments

With climate change looming, it seems so completely backwards to go back to using it again.

Is it coal miners pushing to keep their jobs? Fear of nuclear power? Is purely politically motivated, or are there genuinely people who believe coal is clean?

Edit, I will admit I was ignorant to the usage of coal nowadays.

Now I'm more depressed than when I posted this

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] jakob@lemmy.schuerz.at -8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What is safe on Nuckear Power Plants?

It's enough for hundredthousand of years, if only one time happens a SuperGAU. Only once is enough.

And the nuclear waste is dangerous as fuck for also hundredthousand of years.

And you can produce 30, 40 or maybe 50 years electric energy, and it needs the same time to decontaminate and dismantle a nuclear powerplant. And before it takes 20, 30 or mor years, to build such a plant... This is not cheap, not safe and not sustainable.

[–] updawg@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't trust the US Federal government to properly dispose of it. The waste from the Manhattan Project is buried in a landfill, a landfill that's on fire.

[–] BigNote@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem isn't fire, it's that the waste at Hanford has leached into the soil and a plume of it is headed towards the Hanford Reach on the Columbia River. There's a mitigation plan in place and it looks like it's ultimately going to work, but it's very expensive and not something that anyone wants to see happen again.

[–] updawg@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was referring to the Westlake Superfund site in St Louis right next to the Missouri river

[–] BigNote@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Fair play. That said, please do look up Hanford. It's way bigger than Westlake and is potentially a much bigger problem, though granted, Westlake is problematic as well.

[–] Zangoose@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

Nuclear waste is not dangerous when handled correctly. I'd recommend checking out Kyle Hill on YouTube about this, but when mixed with cement/sand in large amounts it becomes safe much more quickly than that. A lot of the dangers of nuclear power are actually misconceptions