this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, π©πͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well what happens in a war or apocalypse. Then we won't be able to actively cool the cores. I'm just playing devil's advocate. But isn't this one major reason against nuclear?
Nuclear plants are designed to withstand a passenger jet flying into them, as well as minor direct missile barrages.
And with modern reactors, they can't really have Chernobyl-style meltdowns β if the cooling system fails, the fission stops by itself with no active involvement required.
I.e. you have to actively keep modern fission reactors going otherwise it stops on its own, as opposed to actively keep it cooled and safe, like the reactors of the 60s/70s.
Nuclear energy has, by a staggering margin, the lowest death toll of any form of energy generation per kW produced. And almost all of these come from Chernobyl, where 31 people died due to the explosion, then a further 46 died due to radiation poisoning from the cleanup.
By far the biggest issue with modern nuclear is the cost and them taking 7-12 years to deploy, as opposed to safety. SMRs are supposed to help with that aspect, but not enough have been rolled out to get a very good picture of that.
Really we have two choices, because renewables can't provide 100% of our energy mix yet:
build out nuclear as a base energy load and massively decrease fossil fuels in the short term
ignore nuclear and temporarily build out more fossil fuel plants, hoping that planet-scale energy storage will become cheap and ubiquitous in the near future.
You rely on the official Russian death tolls for Chernobyl? Are you serious?
At that point i already stopped reading since it emphazises that you got no clue.
Yes the fission stops. But the fuel still have to be actively cooled for month or years, because it still produces a lot of heat:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_heat
Guess what happened in Fukushima. The reactors shutted down successfully, but the power supply for the cooling failed due to the flooding.
This hits the nail on the head! It's rare to see a sane and realistic take on nuclear online.
That's some wild take on Soviet propaganda.
Soviet propaganda? What the hell are you on about?
That's not soviet propaganda though. That's UN numbers.
Maybe if you weren't such a fucking moron you'd be able to look into it yourself.
lol It's the official numbers provided by the SU. But your ad hominem projection really shows that you don't have any argument in this anyway. Fucking clown.
And it's the numbers the UN have verified. Moron.
You're honestly so fucking stupid. Keep gobbling fossil fuel industry cock, dipshit.
Your insults & attacks just underline your lack of understanding of politics and the castrated nature of the UN. But keep on spewing bullshit propaganda for terrorist states.
Lmao you're the one being insulting, dipshit. Sorry you don't understand a highly researched event and are too fucking dumb to look into it. Seriously. I truly am sorry that you have to live with being that fucking dumb.
Keep spewing propaganda for big oil companies and petrostates like Russia, scum.
I think we can end this here, since you're just repeatedly projecting at this point.
You find "sane and realistic" to claim that 77 people died due to the Chernobyl accident?
It appears to be a widely quoted official figure and have no insight on if it is realistic. I am also aware that this does not consider the considerable environmental impact of the disaster, nor the economic cost to clean up the mess.
My comment was more relating to the facts about the current state of renewables.
The 2 options this comments OP provides at the end are what I mostly agree on, where we either go 0 carbon now and accept nuclear (with its flaws) as base load, or continue with carbon intensive tech as base load and continue to build out renewables on top.
The number of people that died on the spot, could be as low as you say. 77 people is far from being the death toll of the Chernobyl disaster, and that is taking into consideration the fatality numbers are disputed.
That green party estimate is so laughable I'm not even going to comment on it further.
The WHO states it could be up to 4,000 in the long term, but may be substantially lower. The UN Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation concluded that even this figure is far too high.
Harvard university says that 8.7 million people die from greenhouse gas emissions each year. And that doesn't even account for direct accidents from generation and coal/gas extraction. Having a nuclear base load would save millions of lives.
I find it difficult to follow your reasoning. Initially you said 77 people died from the Chernobyl disaster.
Now you have opinions related to the different estimations but talk about thousands of people, without retracting your previous position.
77 people died directly. Up to 4000 (although that's a very high estimate) may die in the long term.
Millions die from fossil fuel emissions each year.
It's not hard to follow at all. You want the death toll to increase, I don't.
I don't think you need to go that far. Accidents happen regularly in all industries. Here is a list of some that have been public:
List of nuclear power accidents by country wiki