Also see: asbestos.
We never tried to figure out a way to safely regulate & use it. It's a magic workable material that can't burn and is durable af. That's amazing!?
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Also see: asbestos.
We never tried to figure out a way to safely regulate & use it. It's a magic workable material that can't burn and is durable af. That's amazing!?
Is it 3 mile island but with a fail safe reactor? Like the ones that don't use fission (lol).
"are we retarded?" yes, Trump got re-elected, which is proof most of us really are retarded. I'm pro nuclear, just not the form we widely use now, and not in the hands of retarded people. And again, most of us clearly are, and one of the worst is going to be president, again.
So I think the best thing we could do is start a nuclear war which will wipe out the human race. Nature will hopefully recover in about 100.000 to 1 million years. Hopefully dolphins will develop less retarded then us dumb monkeys.
The year is 2289.
We know how Dyson spheres work
That star is just literally free energy
But we blew up a solar system and wiped out a developing race one time and we stopped using it.
Imagine if hunters had stopped using fire?!?
Fukushima showed us the truth, Nuclear Safety is incompatible with capitalism. I don't care to find out what other time bombs we build into future plants.
A nuclear accident with 1 attributed death and studies showing no discernable increase in cancer rates for residents in the surrounding regions that happened alongside a tidal wave with thousands of deaths is clearly evidence nuclear is bad.
There's been a few more disasters. Fukushima is notable because if they had built for flooding they would have been fine. But that cost money.
If you listen to the people on Lemmy, everything is incompatible with capitalism. So do we cower in the corner and hope the problems away?
The amount of death and destruction attributable to all nuclear accidents since we figured out fission is barely statistically significant when compared to fossil fuel consumption.
Regulatory agencies can and do keep accidents from happening. Not always, because people are both stupid and corrupt. But mostly.
Capitalism isn't going away any time soon. Maybe in a post fusion world, we'll cross the threshold of post-scarcity too. Until that happens, we do the best we can with the tools at our disposal.
You could make the same argument about literally anything. Capitalism caused the 737Max disasters. You want to give up planes?
I mean, I'm good with giving up Boeing...
But honestly, the profit motive doesn't fit everywhere. It can certainly fit in places like retail, with good safety nets. (Like basic government food available at cost or less for people who need it)
In infrastructure where cost cutting costs more maintenance money, at best? It really doesn't belong.
That's the main Issue! It can't be calculated. It's an enormous debt for the future
Okay but why use a slur to make a point
this is 4chan
Just because burning fossil fuels is bad doesn't magically make nuclear good, or somehow no big deal. The chance for a catastrophic accident mentioned in the meme is only one drawback (which is bad enough--get real, denial is not a strategy here). Just a few other issues:
the problem of what to do with the waste: no permanent solutions have yet been implemented and we've been using costly-to-maintain "temporary" methods for decades. Not to mention the thermal water pollution to aquatic ecosystems
the enormously out of proportion up front costs to construct the plants, and higher ongoing operation and maintenance costs due to safety risks in proportion to amount of power generated
the fact that uranium is also a limited resource that has to be mined like other ores, with all the environmental negatives of that, which then has to go through a lot of processing involving various mechanics and chemicals just to make it usable as fuel.
Anyway I'm not going to try and go into more detail on a forum post, but all this advocacy for a very problematic method of producing power as if it's a simple solution to our problems is kind of irritating. At least I hope the above shows we should stop pretending it's "clean energy". We should be focusing on developing renewable and sustainable energy systems.
I don't get this advocacy either, makes me wonder why? Constructing a nuclear power plant usually takes decades, they are not a solution for the more immediate problem climate change. They also introduce lots of new problems, and it's not sustainable either.
What takes decades is the bureaucracy, it can take as little as 3-5 years without the constant attempts to slow it down. We know the plant can then run for the next 50+ years. It needs to be part of the solution because power demand is constantly growing and we need to phase out other sources. Solar and wind aren't enough and can't get built fast enough alone.
The alternative option is to just force China, India, and every African nation to stop developing. That would reduce power needs enough that solar and wind would be sufficient.
OUR Energy Sector...?