Submitted 1 year ago by MataVatnik@lemmy.world to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/01977d6f-8d12-4b56-b139-98d3d98d23bc.jpeg
One time? Wikipedia says over 100 serious incidents and lists about 30 of them. en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_and_…
It’s fine if you like nuclear, just don’t try and claim it was one time. It poses serious risk and should be treated as such.
Yet it still has much lower deaths per energy generated than fossil fuels, and even less than some renewables. A single hydro accident can kill more people than even the worst nuclear disasters. It’s not fair to pretend that all the other sources are perfectly safe.
Who’s pretending they’re safe? The only pretending I see in the meme is about nuclear. But if you want to argue with something I didn’t say, have at it I guess.
Look up deaths per kWHr of different energy sources and come back to me
It has that low death rate precisely because it is heavily regulated.
The typical nuclear booster argument works on the following circular logic:
“Nuclear is perfectly safe.”
“But that’s not the problem with nuclear. The problem with nuclear is its too expensive.”
“Nuclear is expensive because it’s overly regulated!”
“But nuclear is only safe because of those heavy regulations!”
“We would have everything powered by nuclear by now if it weren’t for Greenpeace.”
That’s not my point and I’m already aware.
The house burning probably happened more than one time too.
The alternative is not necessarily oil.
Just put it somewhere noone lives like the Dakotas or places people who don’t matter live, like west Virginia. All the coal miners getting cancer anyway, why not double tap?
Low blow on West Virginia. Cool state and nice people. Hoping to move there someday.
Most of those didn’t involve the magic rocks, and most didn’t hurt anyone.
More people die creating the building materials for a powerplant (or a windmills, or a solar panel) than ever during operation. The numbers really don’t matter.
I honestly don’t care what we do, as long as we stop burning coal, oil and gas. The way I see it, every nuclear plant and windmill means we all die a little later.
This is the way. Nuclear is actually one of the safer energy sources, and one of the more reliable. It’s also more expensive than most renewables. As always it comes down to local conditions and situations that favor one power source over another - like countries with lots of geothermal that can be exploited or solar probably won’t go nuclear.
Anon is so dense that he will surpass the Poincaré recurrence time of the Universe, and will exist forever. This also means that for every iteration of the current universe he passes through, another iteration of anon will be produced, such that there will eventually be enough idiot anons to form its own entire universe.
Anon is infinitely and eternally stupid.
I always wonder where we would actually be at as a civilization if it weren’t for fuckass lobbyists and money hoarding greedy assholes. This is a perfect example. If we’d learned from our mistakes and actually improved on nuclear energy there’s no telling where we’d be at this point.
But the profits!
“Right in the heart of it is basically a teeny tiny windmill and that just don’t sit right with me” - That one cousin at Thanksgiving
Well, you see, the “Anti Magic Rock” Lobby has immense amount of power because of the money of the still lucrative “burning stuff and pollute everything” business.
Nuclear isn’t in competition with fossil fuels, it’s in competition with renewables. Renewables are better than nuclear by pretty much every conceivable metric. So fuck nuclear power, it’s a waste of money and time.
Fact: that is a fake statement.
Nuclear is not renewables competition.
Nuclear provides a base line energy production.
Both renewables and fossils produce a variable production line.
So within a rational production scheme the choice is nuclear+renewables or fossils+renewables. As renewables by themselves cannot work. Because there is months over the year when it’s not sunny, not rainy and not windy enough, what do we do for those months? We close humanity during those months because some political dogma says so?
Are you sure renewables don’t require more extracted resources and more land usage per quantity of energy produced?
It’s the “Burning other magic rocks” party.
That, and the green parties (at least in EU).
I feel like people are interpreting your comment with an American view. As a fellow European I agree, NGOs like Greenpeace are also to blame, and I don’t think those are financed by fossil fuel lobbies.
Yeah, oil oiled the “green” anti-nuclear protests.
You can tell thats how it was because the cops didn’t beat them as much (or in some big cases at all) as they do even the most insignificant anti-oil protesters.
The “green” parties 💵💵
Slow, expensive, riddeled with corruption, long ago surpassed by renewables. Why should we use it?
Renewables once surpassed fossil fuels, until some brave knight killed all the windmills.
Hey now, someone who knows almost nothing is just asking questions here.
You are saying we should be kinder to the less fortunate?
That’s a nice thought.
You go on thinking renewables are ever going to replace fossil fuel while we charge full tilt to our doom
Not sure I get what you mean by “slow”.
And it’s not entirely shocking that we have more of the power source we’ve been building and less of the one we stopped building.
This argument again?
Yes, it’s called reality. I know it’s an ugly thing that just doesn’t go away no matter how hard you want it to.
only antimatter could provide more energy density, it’s insanely powerful.
produces amounts of waste orders of magnitude lower than any other means of energy production
reliable when done well
it shouldn’t be replaced with renewables, but work with them
it shouldn’t be replaced with renewables, but work with them
Nuclear energy as a bridge technology is incompatible with renewables.
Who gives a fuck about energy density beyond some physics nerds? Unless you’re planning on building a flying nuclear-powered airplane, energy density is irrelevant. This is why solar is eating fission’s lunch.
only antimatter could provide more energy density, it’s insanely powerful.
Nuclear energy indeed has very high energy per mass of fuel. But so what? Solar and wind power doesn’t even use fuel. So the energy density thing is a bit of a distraction.
But it’s not done well. Just look at the new built plants, which are way over budget and take way longer to build then expected. Like the two units in Georgia that went from estimated 14bn to finally 34bn $. In France who are really experienced with nuclear, they began building their latest plant in 2007 and it’s still not operational, also it went from 3.3bn to 13.2bn €. Or look at the way Hinkley Point C in the UK is getting developed. What a shit show: from estimated 18bn£ to now 47bn£ and a day where it starts producing energy not in sight.
Energy density is a useless bullshit metric for stationary power.
Produces more waste than almost all of the renewables.
Reliable compared to… … … ok, I’m out of ideas, they need shutdowns all the time. Seems to me it’s less reliable than anything that isn’t considered “experimental”.
And it can’t work with renewables unless you add lots and lots of batteries. Any amount of renewables you build just makes nuclear more expensive.
They are an interesting technology, and I’m sure they have more uses than making nuclear weapons. It’s just that everybody focus on that one use, and whatever other uses they have, mainstream grid-electricity generation is not it.
Right now we probably use more energy to produce antimatter than getting it back
Yes, but energy density doesn’t matter for most applications and the waste it produces is highly problematic.
Sometimes the sun doesn’t shine, sometimes the wind doesn’t blow. Renewables are great and cheap, but they aren’t a complete solution without grid level storage that doesn’t really exist yet.
Let’s be clear, the only reason grid-level storage for renewables “doesn’t exist” is because of a lack of education about (and especially commitment to) simple, reliable, non-battery energy storage such as gravitational potential, like the ARES project. We’ve been using gravitational potential storage to power our mechanisms since Huygens invented the freaking pendulum clock. There is simply no excuse other than corruption for the fact that we don’t just run a couple trains up a hill when we need to store massive amounts of solar energy.
theguardian.com/…/power-grid-battery-capacity-gro…
US power grid added battery equivalent of 20 nuclear reactors in past four years
Thats a chicken/egg peoblem. If enough renewables are build the storage follows. In a perfect world goverments would incentvice storage but in an imperfect one problems have to occure before somebody does something to solve them. Anyway, according to lazard renewables + storage are still cheaper than NPPs.
Solar with Battery grid storage is now cheaper than nuclear.
Comment105@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Not even a joke, that’s a very concise way to put the argument.
moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
Na it’s dumb. The issue with the magic rocks isn’t the direct consequences like with the fire. The issue with these rocks are long terms with the consequences on humans and the environment thousands of years later.
Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 1 year ago
What consequences?
There are no consequences for animals in Chernobyl, not even to mammals living underground.
People that didn’t leave the exclusion zone died of old age there.
Life on Earth had to deal with all sorts of radiation.
What caused mass extinction was ecosystem change, eg via global climate change.
dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 year ago
Yeah, the environmental issues that are orders of magnitude less problematic than literally pumping the toxic chemicals into the atmosphere like with fossil fuels, vs comparatively miniscule amount of solid waste to store inert.
gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
You bury them in concrete, done. Nuclear waste isn’t an issue and hasn’t ever been
Agent641@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Except the retard didn’t just burn his house down, he burned thousands of people’s houses down in such a way that nobody could ever live there again, and came very close to burning down the whole continent in the same way.
(I’m still in favour of spicy rock steam)
areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 year ago
There was never any real risk of ruining an entire continent. Stop watching TV shows like Chernobyl for accurate information. Perhaps some people thought that at the time, but we now know that kind of thing is impossible. It could have been a worse accident for sure if there was another steam explosion and it would have effected a wider area, but not even close to a continent lol.
Valmond@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Isn’t nuclear energy like super safe and have killed incredibly few people compared to all the other energy sources?
Or are you talking about destilling the magic rocks very much and putting them in a bomb?
frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe 1 year ago
Or to put it another way, we almost ruined a large swath of land and learned from that mistake, but chose not to use it so when we do have to switch to nukes because destroyed our planet we will have forgotten all those lessons and do it again.