@IchNichtenLichten
Not OP, but why not love it? It's one of the cleanest, greenest, safest, and efficient power sources we have.
@Gormadt
Comment on Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production
IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 1 month agoI love nuclear
I’m not trying to be a dick but could you explain why?
blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io 1 month ago
Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
This is exactly why I love nuclear
And who can forget the classic, “Where is the waste from fossil fuels? Take a deep breath, it’s in your lungs. Where is the waste from nuclear power? Where we store it.”
Yes their have been disasters but the waste from those are tracked, in a specific location, and can be cleaned up. The default state of fossil fuels hits every living breathing thing on Earth.
And even factoring in the impact from disasters nuclear is still the safest. And we have even safer designs for reactors nowadays then the reactors that had those disasters.
skulblaka@startrek.website 1 month ago
Nuclear suffers from the airplane fallacy where when something goes wrong it tends to go really wrong and a lot of people die at once and it makes the news. But fact is, many orders of magnitude more people have died from fossil fuel plants, mining, byproducts, and combustion. They just die slower, in smaller groups, so it doesn’t get reported on as easily.
tal@lemmy.today 1 month ago
They just die slower, in smaller groups
looks doubtful
I mean, Chernobyl was the worst nuclear incident, ya? Like, there were definitely some people who were killed right there, but it was a pretty small group.
en.wikipedia.org/…/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di…
There is consensus that a total of approximately 30 people died from immediate blast trauma and acute radiation syndrome (ARS) in the seconds to months after the disaster, respectively, with 60 in total in the decades since, inclusive of later radiation induced cancer.[2][3][4] However, there is considerable debate concerning the accurate number of projected deaths that have yet to occur due to the disaster’s long-term health effects; long-term death estimates range from up to 4,000 (per the 2005 and 2006 conclusions of a joint consortium of the United Nations) for the most exposed people of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, to 16,000 cases in total for all those exposed on the entire continent of Europe, with figures as high as 60,000 when including the relatively minor effects around the globe.
So, immediate deaths were about 30. I mean, that airline crash we had out in those Spanish islands, whatsit called…
googles
Yeah.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster
The Tenerife airport disaster occurred on 27 March 1977, when two Boeing 747 passenger jets collided on the runway at Los Rodeos Airport[1] (now Tenerife North Airport) on the Spanish island of Tenerife.[2][3] The collision occurred when KLM Flight 4805 initiated its takeoff run during dense fog while Pan Am Flight 1736 was still on the runway. The impact and resulting fire killed all on board KLM Flight 4805 and most of the occupants of Pan Am Flight 1736, with only 61 survivors in the front section of the aircraft. With a total of 583 fatalities, the disaster is the deadliest accident in aviation history.[2][3]
I mean, that killed about 20 times the deaths in Chernobyl. I guarantee you that that collision didn’t get twenty times the media coverage or concern of Chernobyl.
Even if we use the highest total death figure listed above for Chernobyl for the “increased death rate around the world” – and I suspect that that’s being awfully pessimistic – it kind of gets dwarfed by how many similar deaths around the world we casually ignore from coal power and the like due to particulate emissions.
googles
hsph.harvard.edu/…/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-resp…
Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide
02/09/2021 | Environmental Research
New research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London, found that more than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested—meaning that air pollution from burning fossil fuels like coal and diesel was responsible for about 1 in 5 deaths worldwide.
Valmond@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Isn’t it even safer than wind energy ?
unphazed@lemmy.world 1 month ago
And now we’re in an age of nuclear fusion. My kid or grandkids may live in a world powered by even cleaner reactors. Which is great because they will probably have to live entirely indoors.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Eh, I feel like we’ve been in an age of nuclear fusion for decades, it’s always just around the corner…
But maybe this latest set of breakthroughs will be it. I’ll believe it when I see a production scale plant.
IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Sure, I get that. My priorities are clean energy that is as cheap as possible and nuclear just can’t compete on cost.
blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io 1 month ago
@IchNichtenLichten
It might have a higher initial upfront cost, but the return on investment over a plant's whole lifetime makes it one of the cheapest. And even then, they don't take long to break even.IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 1 month ago
This isn’t true but I’m happy to be proved wrong.
JamesFire@lemmy.world 1 month ago
How about we regulate all the other power sources as heavily as we regulate nuclear?
This is an extremely unfair comparison, because nuclear has to do things (Even leaving aside the Nuclear part of it) that no other energy source does.
You know any coal supply chains that have to track each atom that they ever dig up?
IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 1 month ago
How about we regulate all the other power sources as heavily as we regulate nuclear?
I can’t believe I even have to mention this but you realize that nuclear power has safety issues that wind and solar do not? Hence the regulation.
And even leaving aside cost, what about other benefits?
Such as?
capital@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Not who you asked but look at France’s energy mix compared to the US.
Imagine where the US could be today regarding emissions if we had kept up with nuclear this whole time.
IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I totally get that but that ship has sailed with renewables being way cheaper now.
Sl00k@programming.dev 1 month ago
Perhaps a bad example because most people undermine them, but China has still decided to move forward with 4 different nuclear facilities this year despite having an ABUNDANCE of solar manufacturing. If they found that decision worthwhile I would think the opposite, assuming most of the reasoning is current battery tech can’t sustain dark periods at a massive scale, but I’m not an expert.
IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Literally every source I’ve come across has nuclear being massively more expensive than renewables + storage, at least in the West.
The market decides what to invest in in a capitalist economy and they will tend to go for the thing that makes them the most money in the shortest time possible and that’s why new nuclear isn’t happening much.
If you’re advocating for public ownership of utilities so there’s central planning and long term thinking instead of profit chasing, that’s an interesting debate to have.