A dam has a higher probability of exploding than a Nuclear Reactor. A WIND TURBINE has a higher probability of exploding than a Nuclear Reactor.
Comment on Microsoft Needs So Much Power to Train AI That It's Considering Small Nuclear Reactors
Nobsi@feddit.de 1 year agoDuh, Yes things have to be built. A Windmill is built in a few weeks by way less people and has no risk of exploding into a huge cloud of death.
Rakonat@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Nobsi@feddit.de 1 year ago
I havent heard of a Wind Turbine causing Fukushima. I think it was Nuclear.
What was the other one… Chernobyl Wind and Solar Farm?Stumblinbear@pawb.social 1 year ago
Wow two whole accidents in a hundred years? One of them didn’t hurt a single person? The other only killed 30 people? Crazy! That’s SO dangerous?
What…? Coal mining killed a hundred thousand people in the last century? In the US alone?
Nobsi@feddit.de 1 year ago
Aren’t you forgetting something?
Liquidators also died way after the explosion from having to clean up all the rubble.
You can still not live in the area and will probably not be able to in many lifetimes.
Rakonat@lemmy.world 1 year ago
More people have died working in Wind than Nuclear. And Nuclear has lower carbon emissions than Wind Turbines to boot. I’m not arguing we shouldn’t be using Wind Turbines, we absolutely should, but the best, cleanest energy grid human kind can hope for right now is a combination of Solar, Wind and Nuclear, because each of three has very distinct advantages and disadvantages that complement each other while doing the least ecological and environmental damage compared to other alternatives.
eclectic_electron@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Obviously building one wind turbine is less disruptive, but you need hundreds to get the same output, and they only work when it’s windy.
Nobsi@feddit.de 1 year ago
It’s always windy. We live on a spinning planet.
Solar needs sun. Nuclear needs water to cool. Hydro needs water.
If you combine solar and wind you can replace many nuclear plants by just using the space we are already using.
eclectic_electron@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
There are a lot of good arguments for wind, and I’m not arguing against it, but density and consistency are well known issues. You absolutely cannot replace a nuclear plant with a wind farm of the same size and get the same output. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, wind farms can often coexist with other land uses, but that’s still a disruptive environment.
It’s good to put pressure on nuclear, the reason it’s so incredibly safe is because it’s highly regulated, but to completely ignore it is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The question isn’t “are nuclear plants perfectly safe”, the question is “will adding nuclear plants to our energy portfolio reduce the risks from climate change enough to offset the risks they introduce.”
I think, in that framework, replacing existing coal power plants with modern nuclear reactors is a huge overall benefit.
Wind and solar are great but there’s still a lot of work needed on storage and transmission before they can be viable grid scale. Realistically, saying no to nuclear doesn’t mean more wind, it means more natural gas. And those LNG tankers really are floating bombs.