Permanently Deleted

    • bewts [he/him,comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      Yeah this is true. They don't operate the subs for profit though (at least not directly). The trillions of war bux gotta go somewhere.

      • BelovedOldFriend [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        They still don't have a clue what to do with the old reactors tho. There's a field of them in WA I think.

        • DefinitelyNotAPhone [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          Meh, it's a pittance compared to the trash fossil fuels generate. If the largest price of our energy providers is we have to dig a big hole in the middle of a desert somewhere and make it unlivable for a few thousand years then I think we can live with that.

          • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]
            ·
            3 years ago

            I hate that the first thing everyone thinks with nuclear waste is "just dump it in a fragile ecosystem." Deserts may not support as much life as woodlands or fields, but they hold many unique species which live a very fragile existence. Why not carve out the inside of a mountain, a place nothing lives?

            • DefinitelyNotAPhone [he/him]
              ·
              3 years ago

              I was oversimplifying, but that is the general consensus for nuclear waste. You find a geologically stable mountain range in the middle of a desert where there's not a ton of wildlife to worry about and dig straight down a few hundred meters and slap a lead slab on top for good measure. Yucca Mountain is the archetypal one I had in mind.

              • Nagarjuna [he/him]
                ·
                3 years ago

                Yucca mountain is a shoshone sacred site and the colonists have no buisness dumping uranium there.

                • DefinitelyNotAPhone [he/him]
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  Well, shit. I had no idea, yeah fuck that then. There has to be another mountain that fits the criteria out there though.