this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024

664 points (69.5% liked)

Memes

45879 readers

930 users here now

Rules:

Be civil and nice.
Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

664

Nuclear isn't perfect, but it is the best we have right now. (lemmy.world)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

585 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, it's not the best we have. Solar and wind are way safer, cost less and don't produce waste.

Sure, nuclear power is safe until it isn't. Fukushima and Chernobyl are examples of that. Nuclear plants in Ukraine were at risk during Russian attacks. Even if you have a modern plant, you don't really think that under capitalism there is an incentive to care properly for them in the long run. Corners will be cut.

Besides that they produce so much waste that has to be: a) being transported b) stored somewhere

Looking at the US railroad system and how it is pushed beyond it's capacity right now and seeing how nuclear waste sites are literally rotting and contaminating everything around them I'd say it's one of the least safe energies. Especially if you have clean alternatives that don't produce waste.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago

You cannot make a solar panel without waste. Is it better, remains to be seen.. But saying solar and wind is zero waste is not the view to have.

They can also be made in ways that cut cost and harm the environment.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Hello from Japan! :)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

After nuclear accidents, you get to make anime without shame.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Wait, I'm seeing a lot of people being very against nuclear. From what I've gathered, I see no downsides compared to fossil fuels

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

It may be too late for nuclear. Too much upfront cost, too long to build. Reneweables are cheaper in the long run, and with storage technologies getting better the problem with base load electricity gets smaller.

It is safe, nuclear, but why bother now.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Is this a joke?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I've been told this meme is about as harmful as a chest x-ray. It's not great but not terrible.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, it is the truth

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, nothing back there except tons of highly radioactive waste that nobody knows what to do with for the next million years, nothing back there but the risk of contaminating a whole region with radioactive shit like it happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima, nothing back there except for overly expensive energy that's only cheap because governments subsidized the shit out of it because they thought it was the new big thing you need to have, and now they still do just because. Don't get me worng, it's probably still a tiny bit better than burning fossils. But it's still bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sigh, we know EXACTLY what to do with it.

Dig a deep hole into the bedrock, put the waste in dry casks, put the casks in the hole, backfill with clay.

This has been known for decades!

I live in a suburb north of Stockholm in Sweden, here in Scandinavia we have a very stable bedrock, I would absolutely welcome a disposal site for nuclear waste in my suburb, and I am talking about a site that would accept waste from all over the world (for a fee obviously).

It would be simple, create jobs, and allow us to keep using nuclear power to allow for quicker removal of fossil power plants.

As for Chernobyl, TMI and Fukashima, Chernobyl was a bad design which was run by people who lacked access to information about past nuclear accidents, leading to bad management, TMI had a fail deadly indicator system, where a broken light bulb caused incorrect information to be acted on, and Fukashima was built in a bad location.

I recommend you to watch this 2006 BBC Horizon documentary, it is called Nuclear Nightmares and talks about our fear of radiation, and weather or not it is warranted:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7pqwo8

A large coal power plant needs at least 10000 tons of coal every day according to Wikipedia.

A nuclear plant needs about 25 tons per year.

That is a huge, massive difference in logistics, pollution and use of resources, that is not even getting into the coal ash that is produced by cosl plants, according to the EPA, nearly 130 million tons of coal ash was generated in the US by coal power plants. None was generated by nuclear power plants.

Please watch the documentary, it is a few years old, but the premise still holds.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Also just for those still not convinced, that coal ash is radioactive as well, and contains other toxins, and has polluted far more land than nuclear.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Oh absolutely!

Another point is that there are places outside Chernobyl and Fukashima that have higher background radiation that either exclusion zone, and that is places where people live normally, I seem to recall that being mentioned in the documentary I linked.

load more comments