4 ms·

I don't think there is any world where getting rid of nuclear power is better...it's one of the cleanest, least deadly forms of power generation.

by slenk 4y ago

userbinator 4y ago
The biggest concern is that when things go wrong with nuclear, they really go wrong.
- towaway15463 4y ago
  And yet we’re all still here and given the number of nuclear power plants and how long we’ve been using them compared to the tiny number of accidents it shows that it is truly the safest form of large scale power generation.
- littlestymaar 4y ago
  It “really goes wrong” only because we've set a really high bar for safety when talking about nuclear risks compared to most other carcinogenic risks: air pollution, pesticides, alcohol, tobacco, etc. If people where living in Prypiat right now, most of their cancer would come from other sources. Because of the cultural stigma associated with radiations (which itself comes from the very real fear of a world-ending nuclear war during the early cold war) most smokers would refused to live around a nuclear accident site, even though it's quickly (after the most radioactive elements, namely iodine, has decayed away) much less dangerous than the cigarette they knowingly smoke all day. Fun fact: did you know that in Germany alone the area of what has been destroyed by coal mining is comparable in size to the exclusion zone of Fukushima. This is when things go alright with coal: https://nitter.42l.fr/autommen/status/1538496930262704128#m https://nitter.42l.fr/autommen/status/1538496930262704128#m viewed from space: https://nitter.42l.fr/KetanJ0/status/1383023566766096386#m https://nitter.42l.fr/KetanJ0/status/1383023566766096386#m
  - userbinator 4y ago
    A short immediate risk is called "danger". A long sustained risk is called "life".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
OtomotO 4y ago
Let's be fair: it's clean on the CO2 front, but the nuclear waste will be relevant for 100.000 years! That is way, way longer than we have anything like civilization!
- rhn_mk1 4y ago
  At the moment it seems that the CO2 problem is more pressing and of greater magnitude than the problem of nuclear waste. It sounds like a relevant tradeoff.
  - slenk 4y ago
    Nuclear waste, as far as I have been learning, is pretty "safe". Yeah, you need a place to deal with it, but it's mostly highly shielded solids. A video I watched recently explaining a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k
  - OtomotO 4y ago
    Yes, logically I agree. I'd rather the species sees another millenium to deal with this, than "go extinct" before. Yet that is half the reason for the drama. The other half being Fukushima and Chernobyl. Humans are not rational beings, hence we need to look at where their fear comes from, to find appropriate solutions.
palisade 4y ago
It is also a lot safer today if new reactors are built. The problem are the old reactors need to be shut down because they're based on older designs. We need to start building Pebble Beach reactors where even if there is a containment break, safe small carbon balls with a thin sliver of fissile material just spill out on the floor. These spread out and reduce their combined temperate averting a meltdown. Individually the balls themselves are not dangerous, they're lukewarm and could be held in the hand (not that you would). I think there are some even newer designs that go beyond this in safety. The problem with the anti-nuclear argument is that it is based on the old rod reactors like the one that failed in Fukushima prefect, Chernobyl or 3 mile island. Of course we shouldn't run those older models anymore. You need to start building the new safer reactors before you begin shutting down the old ones so you can logistically switch, however. Instead we're unfortunately heading for a future where we eventually just shut down these old reactors for safety without a real plan for replacing them. Or, we keep running the old models until they become the very cautionary tale that makes everyone nervous about nuclear.

I don't think there is any world where getting rid of nuclear power is better...it's one of the cleanest, least deadly forms of power generation.

by slenk 4y ago

I don't think there is any world where getting rid of nuclear power is better...it's one of the cleanest, least deadly forms of power generation.

userbinator 4y ago

The biggest concern is that when things go wrong with nuclear, they really go wrong.

towaway15463 4y ago
And yet we’re all still here and given the number of nuclear power plants and how long we’ve been using them compared to the tiny number of accidents it shows that it is truly the safest form of large scale power generation.
littlestymaar 4y ago
It “really goes wrong” only because we've set a really high bar for safety when talking about nuclear risks compared to most other carcinogenic risks: air pollution, pesticides, alcohol, tobacco, etc. If people where living in Prypiat right now, most of their cancer would come from other sources. Because of the cultural stigma associated with radiations (which itself comes from the very real fear of a world-ending nuclear war during the early cold war) most smokers would refused to live around a nuclear accident site, even though it's quickly (after the most radioactive elements, namely iodine, has decayed away) much less dangerous than the cigarette they knowingly smoke all day. Fun fact: did you know that in Germany alone the area of what has been destroyed by coal mining is comparable in size to the exclusion zone of Fukushima. This is when things go alright with coal: https://nitter.42l.fr/autommen/status/1538496930262704128#m https://nitter.42l.fr/autommen/status/1538496930262704128#m viewed from space: https://nitter.42l.fr/KetanJ0/status/1383023566766096386#m https://nitter.42l.fr/KetanJ0/status/1383023566766096386#m
- userbinator 4y ago
  A short immediate risk is called "danger". A long sustained risk is called "life".
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

OtomotO 4y ago

Let's be fair: it's clean on the CO2 front, but the nuclear waste will be relevant for 100.000 years! That is way, way longer than we have anything like civilization!

rhn_mk1 4y ago
At the moment it seems that the CO2 problem is more pressing and of greater magnitude than the problem of nuclear waste. It sounds like a relevant tradeoff.
- slenk 4y ago
  Nuclear waste, as far as I have been learning, is pretty "safe". Yeah, you need a place to deal with it, but it's mostly highly shielded solids. A video I watched recently explaining a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k
- OtomotO 4y ago
  Yes, logically I agree. I'd rather the species sees another millenium to deal with this, than "go extinct" before. Yet that is half the reason for the drama. The other half being Fukushima and Chernobyl. Humans are not rational beings, hence we need to look at where their fear comes from, to find appropriate solutions.

palisade 4y ago

It is also a lot safer today if new reactors are built. The problem are the old reactors need to be shut down because they're based on older designs. We need to start building Pebble Beach reactors where even if there is a containment break, safe small carbon balls with a thin sliver of fissile material just spill out on the floor. These spread out and reduce their combined temperate averting a meltdown. Individually the balls themselves are not dangerous, they're lukewarm and could be held in the hand (not that you would). I think there are some even newer designs that go beyond this in safety. The problem with the anti-nuclear argument is that it is based on the old rod reactors like the one that failed in Fukushima prefect, Chernobyl or 3 mile island. Of course we shouldn't run those older models anymore. You need to start building the new safer reactors before you begin shutting down the old ones so you can logistically switch, however. Instead we're unfortunately heading for a future where we eventually just shut down these old reactors for safety without a real plan for replacing them. Or, we keep running the old models until they become the very cautionary tale that makes everyone nervous about nuclear.