this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
681 points (86.2% liked)
Memes
45745 readers
1799 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
ITT oil and coal propaganda proving propaganda and fear mongering work.
Nuclear is safer in every single regard. Even including weapons nuclear energy has harmed fewer humans than coal or gas by far.
In Australia, nuclear is being used as a propaganda tool by the coal lobby to defend their interests against renewables because the build time is so long (and I suspect because the miners are more or less the same).
Large scale solar with batteries is 1/6th the cost, 5x faster to build, better for the environment, better for energy independence, and doesn't carry the risk of an event that'll render an entire country uninhabitable. I'm yet to hear a decent argument for nuclear.
Correct. It takes a long time to build a miner. Regressive politicians are hard at work to rectify that though, by once again allowing minor miners to mind the mines.
Is nuclear safer than solar and wind?
~~IMO, it is if you factor in the fact that it's currently the fastest way of actually replacing the energy generated by fossil fuels before the earth becomes totally incompatible with human life.~~ Nope, I'm wrong, see replies.
.. but that's literally not true?
Actually, seems you're right though it's obviously still more complicated than either one or the other. I was using outdated information, my bad.
Did some more research. A few links:
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-why-nuclear-won-t-cut-it-if-we-want-to-drop-carbon-as-quickly-as-possible
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2020/Q2/can-renewable-energy-really-replace-fossil-fuels.html (Talks only about renewable energy but not nuclear, though I still found it helpful)
Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for looking into this further and being brave to admit when you’re wrong. That’s a really admirable quality which is way too uncommon these days!
For the safety aspect, I don’t think deaths is the most helpful comparison - considering for nuclear that many, many thousands of people will have to deal with health problems caused by radiation exposure over decades. Lots of people argue that the Chernobyl death toll should include people who die from the effects of that radiation, which would push the numbers from ~300 dead to tens of thousands.
Technically yes, people keep dieing on the windmills.
This is not me saying we need to build less solar or wind. We still need to build more and we also need small modular reactors to provide base load. If we had the battery capacity to store renewables at scale I would be for it however we do not.
Do you have a source for the claim that wind and solar are more dangerous than nuclear?
I looked myself and from what I saw Solar and wind were safer than nuclear, not to mention cheaper and cleaner.
It is close but Nuke wins. Note I'm being pendantic. I think we should be building small modular reactors when farms and solar farms to compliment each other. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Even according to your source (which is really biased, by the way), renewables are just as safe as nuclear.
Why should be waste money on expensive, dirty nuclear power when we can get double the return on investment with much cleaner renewables?
There is no sensible reason to mine limited uranium unless you want us to continue to be dependent on exploitative, extractive industries?
Did you read my comment or did you just derp
it's all fun and games if you just compare the deaths and ignore the fact that there is still a 2600km² area in Ukraine that is so toxic that no one can live in it, and that almost 40 years later.
and that will be that way for thousands of years to come.
Imagine taking the time to have a nuanced opinion and actually read what I wrote. Small modular reactors are not RBMK unhoused unshielded reactors....
Furthermore that power plant is still operational. The major issue with that area is long-term exposure but only if you disturb the ground you should ask the Russians that invaded Ukraine about that.
Your opinion is not nuanced. Maybe practice what you preach.
Just so we are on the same page the original starting point of this entire conversation was somebody asking if nuclear is safer than solar and wind.
I responded that yes technically there are more deaths per capita with solar and wind because the installation procedures are hazardous people keep falling to death and getting crushed. My entire point by bringing up those deaths. It that they are edge case worst case scenarios. However I am still an advocate for renewables such as solar and wind power and offshore sea power. I just realized the reality of the situation that is grid scale storage and how it is currently not feasible to maintain a grid scale storage with out base load power stations such as coal natural gas and nuclear. I would like to remove the coal and natural gas power plants and upgrade them to nuclear plants. Just like a meltdown would be a worst case scenario.
The facts are that meltdowns are exceedingly rare, and we have learned from and improved upon the design of the reactors in use over the last century. Yes nuclear power is 90 years old at this point.
People get crushed and fall to death all the time. Furthermore if it's a modern containment style reactor design then there is basically no risk of long-term contamination.
Tell me more about my opinions and what they are. I don't think you understand what the word nuanced means. Especially if you are proponent of a nuclear scary and scary is bad mindset. Are there potential risks Yes are there potential rewards also yes weighing the pros and the cons. I am pro nuclear.
Nope. The starting point of your and my interaction was you making a snarky meme containing 0 facts that implied anyone who thinks nuclear reactors are scary or have risks are so dumb they can't tell the difference between 2 copies of the same picture.
Then when I called you out on your juvenile behavior and the emotional nature of your argument, you implied I had no reading comprehension and told me to read your other comments.
To use your phrase, "the facts are" that it only takes one bad-enough meltdown to potentially obliterate life on the planet, and that makes nuclear power of any kind a VERY complicated topic. Nuclear power CAN be very useful, but it can also be very dangerous.
Pretending like its a magic bullet is infantile and only harms your cause.
Don't like my ad-hominem attacks against you? You're getting treated the way you treated all of Lemmy when you posted that dumb meme. Now you know how you made everyone else feel first.
My entire point is that idiots like you are comparing modern reactors which can't melt down to catastrophic levels like a Chernobyl event to a f****** RBMK Soviet reactor. A design thought up 80 years ago a design that was out of date when it was constructed. A design that had no fail safes. A design that had no containment vessel. Totally the same thing though. The meme is for you since you cannot tell the difference between the two
Just as an illustration, you just told me you didn't like me putting words in your mouth, then 2 sentences later put words in my mouth. I think you need to reevaluate how you interact with others, and try to treat people the way you want to be treated.
Just saying anyone who disagrees with you is a shill is the absolute most pathetic argument, it's what conspiracy loons do.
No one is saying use coal or gas that's a red herring all the nuclear proponents love to try and throw in there, nuclear is hugely expensive and very slow to build with lots of complex supply chain, waste management issues, and security issues where as renewables are able to be installed far faster, cheaper and safer.
It's either waste huge sums on building nuclear reactors while we continue to burn gas and oil for the ten to twenty years it takes to get a reactor online OR invest in renewables and get off fossil fuels quicker, cheaper and safer.
I love how people will blindly support nuclear power plants so strongly that any argument made against them is automatically called propaganda.
My power electronics professor told us the same thing you did, that nuclear power plants are dead because they're too complex and expensive to maintain in the long run, and that renewables are the better choice at this point. Maybe this will change as fusion reactors improve, but we're probably decades out before industrial fusion plants start showing up, if they ever do.
Two issues here. The fear of nuclear energy was astroturfed by Oil and Gas. This means any irrational arguments against nuclear are propaganda which 99% are.
The second is there is no reason nuclear projects have to be big and complex. We could easily have small reactors to power towns and remote location. The reason we don't has a lot to do with fear.
Simply put we are foolish not to be utilizing more nuclear power.