5 ms·

Nuclear fission is a safe source of power that sane people support. Ukraine is LARPing the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone for political reasons. We should just buil

Nuclear fission is a safe source of power that sane people support. Ukraine is LARPing the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone for political reasons. We should just build a lot of nuclear reactors somewhere in Germany that's hundreds of kilometers from anything we'd care to lose.

ivan_gammel 8y ago
Somewhere in Germany, but hundreds of kilometers from anything worthy - that can happen only in alternative reality where Hitler won and Siberia is now in Germany.
- b3orn 8y ago
  I think he's talking about Berlin.
- warmwaffles 8y ago
  If factorio has taught me anything, it's that I can just shove it into a steel chest and forget about it.
hef19898 8y ago
Besides the fact that there is no such place anywhere in Germany or Western Europe there actually is point in that argument. Which is the question who should have nuclear power plants as it is impossible to get rid of them. A country like Germany where tight controls can be reinforced or someone else like say Ukraine or Czechy. The other point is that fact that you need the distance in case the plant blows up. Which implies it can blow up. Which is true as well (unsinkable Titanic, tsunami safe Fukushima, you name it) as technology can and will fail.
- anoncake 8y ago
  Counter-intuitively, one of the less bad places for an NPP might actually be Pripyat. Making the CEZ even more irradiated is better than creating another.
  - hef19898 8y ago
    Pretty nice place for that, yes. Also to store all the nuclear waste. And I mean that in all seriousness. As a side note, I once saw an emergency plan for the nuclear power nearby where I life (it is still live). Quite a shock to see that in case of a bad enough emergency nobody would have bothered to evacuate me to begin with. I get the logic, but still kind of shocking.
  - vidarh 8y ago
    They kept operating the other reactors at Chernobyl for years, so sure. Most of the zone is no worse than a high altitude town by now.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      But they didn't do it because they considered it a great idea, but because Ukraine couldn't afford not to.
- jwr 8y ago
  Nuclear plants do not "blow up". This is FUD, pure and simple. People are unreasonably scared of nuclear energy, and we might lose a planet because of this. For real data on how dangerous nuclear energy is, please look at https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...
  - hef19898 8y ago
    Well, there actually is some unreasonable view on nuclear. Especially in Germany. Doesn't change the fact that long term we should get rid of it. The storage of the waste is just to tricky and when not if something goes wrong we talk about serious damage. That we should IMHO get rid of coal earlier isn't exclusive, so.
    - atemerev 8y ago
      Today's "waste" is tomorrow's fuel for breeder reactors. We don't need to store waste; we need to burn it.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      Nuclear plants do not 'blow up' this is simply total distortion of reality. There are ways to help solve the waste issues, and ways to make plants safer. Given the near infinite latent power in nuclear, and the fact that it's Co2 free ... we should probably be considering this strongly and putting a lot of effort into researching it.
    - Gondolin 8y ago
      Yes long term we should get rid of it (for fusion), but in short term the priority is climate change. And nuclear fision is a tremendous asset for climate change. There are still huge challenge of course, and we are unfortunately not at all on course to tackle them, but depriving ourselves of nuclear is only going to make things worse.
  - anoncake 8y ago
    > Nuclear plants do not "blow up". The reactor of Chernobyl did blow up. Just not like a nuclear bomb, if that's what you meant. Which may be a bad thing, Hiroshima is actually inhabitable. >People are unreasonably scared of nuclear energy, and we might lose a planet because of this. People are quite reasonably scared of nuclear energy. What's unreasonable is that they are less scared of global warming. Your data is not convincing -- in fact, I think it does not address the danger of nuclear and fossil energy at all. Using fossils kill a fairly predictable number of people each year. For a country, let alone humanity as a whole, that is not a danger but a cost.
petre 8y ago
Have you even been to Germany? Everywhere you look there's a building or a construction. Germany is not Russia to have vast amounts of uninhabited land. What we need is safer fission reactors, preferably unpressurized and without graphite moderator that burns or molten sodium or potassium that ignite in contact with air. Gas leaks. Some molten salts are probably fine, not too corrosive. Water needs to be pressurized but PHWRs (Candu) and smaller PWRs, both US and Russian and French designs have good track records.

ivan_gammel 8y ago

Somewhere in Germany, but hundreds of kilometers from anything worthy - that can happen only in alternative reality where Hitler won and Siberia is now in Germany.

b3orn 8y ago
I think he's talking about Berlin.
warmwaffles 8y ago
If factorio has taught me anything, it's that I can just shove it into a steel chest and forget about it.

hef19898 8y ago

Besides the fact that there is no such place anywhere in Germany or Western Europe there actually is point in that argument. Which is the question who should have nuclear power plants as it is impossible to get rid of them. A country like Germany where tight controls can be reinforced or someone else like say Ukraine or Czechy. The other point is that fact that you need the distance in case the plant blows up. Which implies it can blow up. Which is true as well (unsinkable Titanic, tsunami safe Fukushima, you name it) as technology can and will fail.

anoncake 8y ago
Counter-intuitively, one of the less bad places for an NPP might actually be Pripyat. Making the CEZ even more irradiated is better than creating another.
- hef19898 8y ago
  Pretty nice place for that, yes. Also to store all the nuclear waste. And I mean that in all seriousness. As a side note, I once saw an emergency plan for the nuclear power nearby where I life (it is still live). Quite a shock to see that in case of a bad enough emergency nobody would have bothered to evacuate me to begin with. I get the logic, but still kind of shocking.
- vidarh 8y ago
  They kept operating the other reactors at Chernobyl for years, so sure. Most of the zone is no worse than a high altitude town by now.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    But they didn't do it because they considered it a great idea, but because Ukraine couldn't afford not to.
jwr 8y ago
Nuclear plants do not "blow up". This is FUD, pure and simple. People are unreasonably scared of nuclear energy, and we might lose a planet because of this. For real data on how dangerous nuclear energy is, please look at https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...
- hef19898 8y ago
  Well, there actually is some unreasonable view on nuclear. Especially in Germany. Doesn't change the fact that long term we should get rid of it. The storage of the waste is just to tricky and when not if something goes wrong we talk about serious damage. That we should IMHO get rid of coal earlier isn't exclusive, so.
  - atemerev 8y ago
    Today's "waste" is tomorrow's fuel for breeder reactors. We don't need to store waste; we need to burn it.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Nuclear plants do not 'blow up' this is simply total distortion of reality. There are ways to help solve the waste issues, and ways to make plants safer. Given the near infinite latent power in nuclear, and the fact that it's Co2 free ... we should probably be considering this strongly and putting a lot of effort into researching it.
  - Gondolin 8y ago
    Yes long term we should get rid of it (for fusion), but in short term the priority is climate change. And nuclear fision is a tremendous asset for climate change. There are still huge challenge of course, and we are unfortunately not at all on course to tackle them, but depriving ourselves of nuclear is only going to make things worse.
- anoncake 8y ago
  > Nuclear plants do not "blow up". The reactor of Chernobyl did blow up. Just not like a nuclear bomb, if that's what you meant. Which may be a bad thing, Hiroshima is actually inhabitable. >People are unreasonably scared of nuclear energy, and we might lose a planet because of this. People are quite reasonably scared of nuclear energy. What's unreasonable is that they are less scared of global warming. Your data is not convincing -- in fact, I think it does not address the danger of nuclear and fossil energy at all. Using fossils kill a fairly predictable number of people each year. For a country, let alone humanity as a whole, that is not a danger but a cost.

petre 8y ago

Have you even been to Germany? Everywhere you look there's a building or a construction. Germany is not Russia to have vast amounts of uninhabited land. What we need is safer fission reactors, preferably unpressurized and without graphite moderator that burns or molten sodium or potassium that ignite in contact with air. Gas leaks. Some molten salts are probably fine, not too corrosive. Water needs to be pressurized but PHWRs (Candu) and smaller PWRs, both US and Russian and French designs have good track records.