Natasha 
🇪🇺Data Centres
Klaus Frank@Natasha_Jay You forgot the part where they started to use a Jet engine recently to power a datacenter...
Billy O'Neal@agowa338 I mean, jet turbines are more efficient than reciprocating engines. If you're not going to use renewables or nuclear it's better than a lot of options
Glorrion@malwareminigun @agowa338 However, nuclear fission would still raises the issue of how to safely store waste for the next few thousand years...🤔
Technically no. That's more of a capitalism issue than an engineering one. Most of the nuclear waste would still be able to be burned and at the end we'd be left with less than one tincan of waste for the entire world...
It just was cheaper to use new fresh uranium than to recycle the existing one into new fuel rods...
Edit: Often it also was only cheaper because of government subsidies too...
It's just called burning nuclear fuel. You're not literally setting them on fire...
English can be a strange language sometimes.
Billiglarper@malwareminigun @agowa338 @Glorrion
They don't. Each "recycling" iteration to get at the unused Uranium and the Plutonium creates quite a bit of toxic and nuclear waste. And even France only does one iteration of this.
To burn it in one go, you would need a breeder reactor. And they are quite a can of worms with regards to safety, cost and plutonium proliferation.
@billiglarper @malwareminigun @Glorrion
Yep you'd need a breeder. But most of the challenges aren't engineering ones but economic and financial. From a purely scientific stance it is totally doable and manageable.
@Glorrion @agowa338 No, you don't need to store until the Uranium decays: the Uranium is already there. Only until the bits with much shorter half lives decay, which is hundreds of years, not thousands.
And this is a much Much MUCH easier problem to solve than the utility scale storage problem renewables need. There are NIMBY issues of course but that's true of every waste disposal facility.