Comment on nuclear fear-mongering is a ploy by Big oil

downpunxx@fedia.io ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• PhoenixAlpha@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Air pollution from coal and oil is estimated to kill 5 million people every year. That’s more than every nuclear disaster combined, and not to mention the signifcant safety advances that have been made since those disasters.

  All nuclear waste ever produced can fit in one football field. It’s stored in containers so thick you can go up and hug them safely, and so strong you can ram them with a train without doing significant damage. And if need be, we have the means to bury it deep underground.

  Renewables are fine, but they don’t deliver consistently, so they need backup power. Nuclear provides that at much lower environmental cost than, say, giant lithium batteries.

  source
• Iron_Lynx@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  For one, even with disasters factored in, nuclear kills only 0.04 people per TWh of energy produced. Coal kills 160. That is four orders if magnitude more.
  Oil fares better, but with 36 fatalities per TWh, that’s still a thousand times more deadly than nuclear.

  For two, every milligram of emissions from nuclear power is accounted for, as someone in the other thread said. All the waste fits inside a football field, and is stored in ginormous casks which can stand being smashed by a train, and are so thick you can hug them with no consequences to health and safety.
  Meanwhile, emissions from coal and oil are vented to atmosphere. Including volatile radioactive trace contaminants. Which means that ironically, on top of the greater fatalities and the carbon emissions, fossil fuels have worse nuclear emissions.

  As for storage, for one, that’s hampered because the oblivious and the malicious get to contribute to the discussions. Fact is that there are sites for long term storage, which are in the process of being filled with spent fuel.
  For two, much less of that stuff is needed if spent nuclear fuel is recycled. Which Japan and France do.

  Finally, an electricity grid needs three things: capacity, stability and flexibility. Both nuclear and renewables offer stability, but only nuclear offers stability, while renewables offer flexibility.

  The solution is not nuclear XOR renewables.

  It is nuclear OR renewables.

  Or nuclear AND renewables.

  source
• Forester@yiffit.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  . Do me a favor and look at the big chart that is the top comment in the comet thread and see how much of our energy needs are currently met by oil, coal and natural gas and see that 16% of our energy needs are met by a combination of all renewables. While I agree that we do need to continue investing more in renewables. There is only so much sunshine in a day and it isn’t sunny everyday and it isn’t sunny everywhere. We do not have the transmission technology to pipe electricity across continents feasibly. There’s certainly enough Sunshine at the equator. Good luck getting it beyond 30° north or south. The other issue is storage pumped. Hydro isn’t an option in most places because there isn’t enough water or natural reservoirs available to fill. So please elaborate on your battery storage solution for your solar mega farms and how you’re going to distribute that energy feasibly worldwide.

  source

  • kbin_space_program@kbin.run ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    If Germany can have viable solar energy generation, and they do, then everywhere can

    source

    • Forester@yiffit.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I’m not saying Germany can’t produce solar energy. I’m saying Germany can’t run on nothing but solar energy which is why we need something dependable to take up the base load. That is not fossil fuel based.

      source

      • ChairmanMeow@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        If you Google “is a nuclear baseload required” you’ll find plenty of articles clearly demonstrating why this isn’t true. Renewables + storage solutions can provide the base load just fine. The biggest issues have been worked out already, it just needs to be built (which is expensive, but so would nuclear be).

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• halvar@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  A nuclear scientist once explained this to me and a few of my friends in such a great way and I can only do injustice to that explaination, but I will try anyway.

  What the nuclear disasters are, are tail risks. What he meant by that, is the more severe a disaster is the less chance it has happening, which you can imagine like the tail of a rat: the further away it is from body the thinner it is. Now the thing about nuclear disasters is that the tail is very long and gets very thin towards the end. That makes it so most incidents reported are incredibly unintresting (thankfully), most of them being non-vital valves gettint stuck and such. But when those really small (and with advancement always shrinking) chances cause a disaster you may have to evacuate a town. Then he told us about the Eschede train disaster. What happened was basically that a wheel of a train cracked and through incredible unluck killed half of the passangers. And looking at the history of trains, while this particular kind of mishap is very rare and we even have systems in place to prevent it from happening, other kinds of catastrophic failures have happened multiple times throughout history, sometimes even killing bystanders, much like a nuclear reactor could. This didn’t stop people from boarding trains though, since the odds were always in their favor and the usefullness of the train was incredible at the time. At the end of the day we have to evaluate whether the benefits are worth the risk. And once again this scientist told us that while he may be a bit biased in this regard he does think those disasters are less and less likely to happen by the day and with the amount of energy generated they are quite worth it.

  source
• NorthWestWind@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  But we can only get 10% of power from the sun and that power is also spread across half the globe.

  source