• Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    “if we store them safely” - here’s the problem with the entire argument. Nobody wants to pay for it, so they won’t unless they are forced to. Carbon capture is a viable technology but it costs money to implement at a net financial loss, so nobody uses that if they don’t have to either. The problem is the same as always - nobody who stands to lose money gives a damn. The planet dying is somebody else’s concern tomorrow, and profits are their concern today.

    • x00z@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Are you talking about the USA? Because I don’t see this mentality much outside of it.

      But yeah, make it a law and force them.

      • Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        At least in Germany it’s the same. It gets ignored in the discussions concerning nuclear exit but it’s actually the main reason why I’m not aggressively against it: we have save areas for nuclear storage but those fight bitterly to not have it. The areas which are currently used are… Not good. Paying someone else (such as Finland) is out of budget for both state and energy companies. The latter anyway want to do the running but not the maintenance and the building, state should pay for that.

        It’s really white sad for me. The (true) statement that the dangerous waste needs to be stored carefully got corrupted to “it can’t be stored”.