Comment on Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

• Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

  source

  • skulblaka@startrek.website ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

    source

    • tal@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

      source
    • Valmond@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Isn’t it even safer than wind energy ?

      source
  • unphazed@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

    source

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

      source

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        It has value in terms of research but I’ve seen no evidence that we’re even remotely close to hooking a fusion reactor up to a grid.

        source
• IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Sure, I get that. My priorities are clean energy that is as cheap as possible and nuclear just can’t compete on cost.

  source

  • blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

    source

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      This isn’t true but I’m happy to be proved wrong.

      source

      • blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        @IchNichtenLichten
        I've found this reference that seems good:

        https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/energy-return-on-investment

        https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power

        There's certainly more, but I'm not nuclear powered and don't have the mental energy for online debate 😁

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • JamesFire@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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?

    source

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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?

      source