this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
1023 points (96.9% liked)
Science Memes
11431 readers
2460 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- !reptiles and [email protected]
Physical Sciences
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and [email protected]
- [email protected]
- !self [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So do you still believe in bloodletting to cure colds or the earth being 10,000 years old?
Humanity, or at least written scripture, is roughly 10,000 years old. So if you take humanity = earth, then yes it's approximately true. But also, it's an incredibly egoistic viewpoint because earth is not just humanity.
Edit: by humanity, I mean human culture and not so much human biology.
so basically, if you define a leaf as a caterpillar, it's basically the same thing, got it.
yeah, you got it!
sick
My parents have witnessed not one but two nuclear catastrophes in their lifetime. Wtf are you talking about?
how many cancers have they witnessed from the likes of coal power? Or things like asbestos? Shit like arsenic, or worse, lead. They probably have a significant IQ drop from leaded fuel, assuming they're american.
Sure, nuclear energy is valid and all, but you sound like an absolute spanner...
If you want to argue that nuclear energy has its place, maybe don't ridicule people who remember how much of an issue the last major nuclear meltdown was (and partially is).
N stiwtosotsotskgsgms
Fukushima has barely any fall out though, does it. And the nuclear energy sector is moving towards even safer methods with SMRs that are self contained and just can't have a runaway reaction AFAIK
Can't have a runaways reaction like the Titanic was unsinkable.
i mean, the titanic was also definitionally, not unsinkable, they just called it that.
Well there is a difference between marketing and physics
If you want a reaction that you can take energy away from the reaction, the reaction needs to create more energy than it needs to maintain itself. If you fail to take that energy away, the reaction will accelerate and your output will grow even further.
It is basic physics.
The only alternative would be to have an open system that runs on so little fuel that you need to feed it continuously. This has an entirely different level of problems, as now it will be impossible to contain the radiation to the reaction chamber and the containers of the spent fuel. Also with that you would need an entirely different design of how the radioactive material is held in place and how the reactions are controlled. The current way of adjusting how much you block with control rods probably won't work.
It is just impossible to have an exponential system like the nuclear reactions used in a reactor without active control measures. And active measures can fail.
Impossible?
https://www.eria.org/uploads/media/Research-Project-Report/2021-07-Small-Modular-Reactor-/8_Ch.2-Safety-Economics-SMR.pdf
Page 7
Page 4. Describing exactly what i said.
Page 6, which refers to the graphic on page 7. So this only applies if the reactor was at around 30% or less of the design power output.
Page 10.
Yeah great idea. This is Titanic all over again. We don't need a last resort because we have been so smart, that all preliminary features are deemed infaillable. A story as old as humans building complex technology.
N stiwtosotsotskgsgms
For starters we are talking about concepts, not actually built and tested Reactors. If you have any connection to scientific research, technology development or engineering, you should know that between hypothesis, laboratory testing, prototype development, technology upscaling, establishment of production lines and finally long term operation routines there is a lot that will not be like expected, has to be revised, adjusted, scrapped, redesigned...
The history of nuclear energy is riddled with cases of hubris leading to disasters. It is evident that so far humans were unable and unwilling to give safety the proper considerations.
But from a practical point of view anyone with some industry experience would find the idea insane, that Small and Modular systems, so high throughput of small batches would increase safety. It is much more complicated to provide Quality and Safety checks in such an environment. Especially as these would be done by multiple for profit companies, the necessary oversight would be more difficult to provide for the regulation authorities, so in the medium run we will get Boeing like situations. Just that cost cutting and mingling will lead to reactors contaminating large swaths of areas on top of potentially killing hundreds of people.
So now you explain, why we should totally listen to the claims made by for profit cost cutting companies, that are solely based on concepts, without any actual field testing.
Because that was exactly the Titanic situation. People believed it to be unsinkable and decided to cut on costs for emergency measures. Reality proved them wrong on the first and last voyage.
N stiwtosotsotskgsgms
But Fukushima did render a fairly large area uninhabitable, and the ongoing cleanup is still costing billions every year.
Also, there's still no solution to nuclear waste beyond burying it and hoping that no one digs it up.
Renewables exist, and, combined with upgrading the grid and adding sufficient storage facilities, can provide for 100% of electricity demand at all times. Without any of the risks associated with nuclear power (low as they may be, they exist), and without kicking a radioactive can down the road for hundreds of generations.
what about shit like lead? Or arsenic? That shit doesn't go away, yet we still use it all over the place, maybe not arsenic, but still lead is huge.
ironically, there has been research to determine that a lot of the initial evacuation actually exposed people to MORE radiation, than had they not evacuated, interestingly, they did see an increase in cancer rates, and what not, down the road. However, it wasn't statistically significant compared to other stats from other places.
So even if it did matter, it seems in terms of healthcare, it was a statistical anomaly, more than a concern.
Plus now we have some really cool radiation detecting networks that are volunteer(?) led, it's been a while since i've read into this, but these systems give us a MUCH better idea of what's happening now with radiation, than when it happened. So if it did happen again, the results would be even better.
Uninhabitable? Most of the evacuations were unnecessary, and there would have been less loss-of-life if most people sheltered in-place. In the year following the event, nearby residents received less than 20% of lifetime natural background radiation, about 2 chest CT scans, or a bit more than an airline crew, and less than a heavy smoker.
As for waste, dry casks are plenty good. The material is glassified, so it can't leach into ground water, and the concrete casing means you get less radiation by sitting next to one, as even natural background radiation is partially blocked. Casks are also dense enough for on-site storage, needing only a small lot to store the lifetime fuel use of any plant. A pro and a con of this method is that the fuel is difficult to retrieve from the glass, which is bad for fuel reprocessing, but good for preventing easy weapons manufacturing.
Meanwhile, coal pollution kills some 8 million people annually, and because the grid is already set up for it, when nuclear plants close they are replaced with coal or oil plants.
Upgrading the grid is expensive, and large-scale storage is difficult, and often untested. Pumped hydro is great for those places that can manage it, but the needed storage is far greater, and in locations without damable areas. Not only would unprecidented storage be necessary, but also a grid that's capable of moving energy between multiple focus points, instead of simply out of a plant. These aren't impossible challenges, but the solutions aren't here yet, and nuclear can fill the gap between decommissioning fossil fuels and effective baseline storage.
Solar and Wind don't have the best disposal record either, with more efficient PV cells needing more exotic resources, and the simple bulk of wind turbines making them difficult to dispose of. And batteries are famously toxic and/or explosive. Once again, these challenges have solutions, but they aren't mature and countries will stick with proven methods untill they are. That means more fossil fuels killing more people unnecessary. Nuclear can save those people today, and then allow renewable grids to be built when they are ready.
100% minus the energy requirements of AI 🫠
Nuclear plant accidents have happened tho. Remember Fukushima? It was 13 years ago, not that long. It didn't strait up explode like a nuclear bomb, and neither did Chernobyl, but still; contamination is a pretty big deal. You can argue that the risk isn't that bad or that fossil energy plants also have risks; but you can't just dismiss it as a superstition.
fukushima was a BWR design, put on the coast of a place known for having tsunamis, and wasn't properly equipped with emergency generators (they flooded, oopsies) which they couldn't get to, in order to service the reactor, due to the roads being fucking yeeted.
Literally any other plant on earth is going to have a better outcome.
Modern reactor designs have no such problem, hence the reference to ancient science.
You get much more radiation and excess deaths from Coal and Natural gas plants than Fukushima and Chernobyl, it's just that it's not as obvious as it happens slowly over time.
In fact there are more deaths caused by wind energy sources than nuclear energy sources.
There was still 164,000 people who needed to evacuate 230 square miles. The land is contaminated and cleanup is proving difficult. Japan will be dealing with the environmental impact for a century I'd wager.
Look up fly ash storage ponds. That's just normal coal usage. Then look up fly ash spills. Then look up how much radioactive material is released into the atmosphere each year from burning coal. Compare that to the estimated amounts of radioactive material released into the environment from all the nuclear plant accidents, and tell me we still wouldn't be better off switching all coal off and using nuclear.
Now, we don't really have to do that, because we have other options now. But we definitely should have used more nuclear 50 years ago, just for the reduced cost of human lives.
At what point am I supporting coal? Totally irrelevant
I'm saying Fukushima was an ecological disaster. Thankfully very few people died, but to only focus on that minimises the impact of the event. If you're going to say Fukushima wasn't that bad, you can't just cherry pick at the impacts.
Is nuclear better than fossil fuels? Yes. But that was an argument for the 80s. The time for nuclear was 50 years ago. It didn't happen.
what do they call all the waste mining material? The kind of shit that they leave in huge piles, to get rained on, which leeches all kinds of fun shit into the ground?
oh right, they call them tailings. Surely we've never seen mass ecological fallout from tailings getting into, let's say, a river.
This one says, now it's only 27 square kilometers ( fuck your stupid ass miles) https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/14/asia/japan-fukushima-katsurao-village-return-intl-hnk/index.html
And this is from 2022
I think you misunderstood what was written:
27 km² are the worst areas. The other 310km² are still "difficult-to-return".
You should read more of the article it's difficult to return to because even though it's save ( the radiation level is less than 2 CT scans a year ) people worry about the radiation, have built lives elsewhere.
N stiwtosotsotskgsgms
They need cooling water, so "on the coast" is a reasonable location. Or do you mean "not in Japan"? A country without many great options for clean energy generation. Frankly Japan is one of the places nuclear makes sense to me. There's not many options.
It doesn't make sense to me in the US where there's a sunshine belt across the country 5 timezones long, large windswept plains and shallow coastlines. The US is rich in options and nuclear falls down the list.
N stiwtosotsotskgsgms
Yes, as I live in neither.
Yeah I’m way over this conversation dude lol have a nice rest of your week
The idea of an explosion is. That's what this thread is about. It's not just about meltdowns, which, like you said, is very low risk, and lower than ever from what we've learned in the past.