3 ms·

Once again: nuclear is either the safest or one of the safest forms of energy we have. Hydro is less safe, Wind is less safe (thought not by much). Solar is

Once again: nuclear is either the safest or one of the safest forms of energy we have. Hydro is less safe, Wind is less safe (thought not by much). Solar is about the same. You know how much soil is contaminated by arsenic and heavy metals used in the production of solar panels or wind turbines? I don't either, because it isn't in the news. When an installer falls off a roof, it doesn't make the news. And the other thing that people don't understand is the energy density of nuclear. A single nuclear power plant is definitely much more dangerous than a single solar panel or a single wind turbine. But you need so much more of the latter two than the former that it evens out (or more than evens out). I would think that hackers can figure out this sort of simple arithmetic. Nobody is saying that the accidents are not bad. However, they are not actually that bad. And certainly not nearly as bad as laypeople think. And more importantly, there is nothing that has the perfect safety you appear to demand of nuclear. These things are tradeoffs, and those tradeoffs are very much in favor of nuclear. As evidence, I present you Ukraine: the country that had the absolutely worst nuclear accident in the history of the world. Unstable reactor, no containment, authoritarian government with horrible crisis management. And yet, they kept their nuclear reactors. And not just that, they are among the 22 countries that have pledged to triple nuclear output by 2050. What do they know that you do not? As further evidence, I present you Japan: the country with the second worst nuclear accident in history. The accident you keep citing as so incredibly horrible that no sane person could possibly invest in nuclear. Of course the Tsunami was far worse than the nuclear accident, and the nuclear accident only happened because the Tsunami overwhelmed the protective infrastructure, as it overwhelmed the protective infrastructure of various non-nuclear facilities. And yet, Japan is going with nuclear, and also happens to be among the 22 countries that signed the COP28 nuclear pledge to triple output by 2050. What do they know that you do not? The countries with the most experience with nuclear accidents are aware that these are tradeoffs, and have come to the conclusion that the tradeoffs favor nuclear.

Krasnol 3y ago
> Once again: nuclear is either the safest or one of the safest forms of energy we have. Hydro is less safe, Wind is less safe (thought not by much). Solar is about the same. This "assessment" is base upon a single image which is being handed up and down the nuclear astro-turf, and it's ignorant and disrespectful. There are still victims of Chernobyl out there, and there will be for generations. You can give them some money to append for the use of this meme: https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ And not only there: https://culturacolectiva.com/en/history/mexico-radioactive-milk-chernobyl/ https://culturacolectiva.com/en/history/mexico-radioactive-m... https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/foodstuffs/mushrooms-game/mushrooms-game_node.html https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/foodstuffs/mush... https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1007843 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1007843 > And the other thing that people don't understand is the energy density of nuclear. Sure they do. They don't care because you know what's even better? The sun in the sky, for example... > Nobody is saying that the accidents are not bad. However, they are not actually that bad. We currently have a country full of reactors which are beyond the time they were supposed to run. Failures, accidents, shutdowns, global warming, etc. are happening to them, but the country doesn't have a diversified energy generation infrastructure. They'll keep it running. Accidents will keep on happening. Meanwhile, the world keeps on turning. Global conflicts are coming nearer. Mad dictators waging wars, drones, hackers, machine learning, are happening. Why would any sane person even think about keeping or even BUILDING new targets in a densely populated area?? > As evidence, I present you Ukraine: the country that had the absolutely worst nuclear accident in the history of the world. Unstable reactor, no containment, authoritarian government with horrible crisis management. And yet, they kept their nuclear reactors. And not just that, they are among the 22 countries that have pledged to triple nuclear output by 2050. They didn't have a choice back then. Now they have other things to care about. Like invading troops hiding their tanks and ammunition WITHIN their nuclear power plants! How the hell is this supposed to be an argument FOR nuclear?!? Btw: I doubt they'll have even a fraction of the required money to build a single reactor in the future once the war is over. Renewables are incoming. And yeah...gota love that "pledge": https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/12/11/nuclear-energy-cop28-electricity-emissions-climate/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/12/11/nuclear-energy-cop28-el... Nuclear has peaked, and even China invests much more in renewables than it said it would invest into nuclear. (The rest has other use: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/19/major-expansion-china-now-has-more-than-500-nukes-pentagon-says-00122440 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/19/major-expansion-chi...) Time's up. Taxpayers will not be ready to waste money on those nonsense projects if the alternatives are cheaper and faster to build. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wind-solar-in-china-generating-2x-nuclear-today-will-be-4x-by-2030/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wind-solar-in-china-gen... https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718 https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718 https://www.ft.com/content/2bccd67f-a3c6-48d1-baa5-8ef9d54cdf67 https://www.ft.com/content/2bccd67f-a3c6-48d1-baa5-8ef9d54cd... > The countries with the most experience with nuclear accidents are aware that these are tradeoffs, and have come to the conclusion that the tradeoffs favor nuclear. No they didn't. They greenwash regulations, rip off taxpayers, renationalize companies responsible for construction and maintenance because they can't survive on their own. It's a complete failure and the time is up. https://about.bnef.com/blog/dead-horse-also-ran-or-unicorn-how-nuclear-fits-with-net-zero/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/dead-horse-also-ran-or-unicorn-h... https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/World-Report-Shows-Nuclear-Energy-Production-Fell-by-4-Last-Year.html https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/World-Rep... https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuclears-share-world-power-output-multi-decade-low-report-2023-12-06/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuclears-share-world...
- mpweiher 3y ago
  > "assessment" is base upon a single image Incorrect. This assessment is based on the actual data. > https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ A "charity" that's a .com domain and has an illegal "consent" form. (Not all consent forms are illegal, but that one clearly is). Yeah, sure what more reliable source could there possibly be? I actually went through the reports by the WHO. The official reports they did every 10 years after the accident. Did you? Were you even aware of those reports? They are on the WHO website. Each subsequent report lowered the estimate of "negative health effects" from the previous report by an order of magnitude. Yes, that's a factor of 10. Each one, and there have been a number of them. By the last couple, the negative health effects of the evacuation were significantly higher than those of the accident itself. Which has also been the case in Japan. > > And the other thing that people don't understand is the energy density of nuclear. > Sure they do. They don't care because you know what's even better? The sun in the sky, for example... Thanks for so skillfully demonstrating how the lack of understanding of energy density looks like in practice! Very much appreciated. > [Ukraine] How the hell is this supposed to be an argument FOR nuclear?!? Everything you say should be, in your world, the best reasons for getting OUT of nuclear. Yet they are not just not getting out, they want to expand. Maybe they know something you do not? >> The countries with the most experience with nuclear accidents ... favor nuclear. > ...greenwash, rip off, renationalize ... To which you have exactly no response, except that they must all be corrupt and ignorant. Really? That's your position? You know better, the people who actually do have first hand knowledge and hundreds if not thousands of experts know nothing and are all corrupt. Hmm.. Or maybe, just maybe, they know something you do not.
  - Krasnol 3y ago
    This is just the first charity I got from google. There are a dozen more. It's ridiculous that the freaking consent form of a website is your argument now. How are you not ashamed, posting this? And no I didn't go through the WHO report (just like you didn't....you didn't even know why Belarus is a topic here so stop lying!), I know people PERSONALLY who are affected by that. Now what? What graphic will you pull out now? In my previous comment, I brought up several sources to support my arguments. You have nothing here. Nothing besides the disgusting attitude you bring up towards those who suffer the technology you worship.

Krasnol 3y ago

> Once again: nuclear is either the safest or one of the safest forms of energy we have. Hydro is less safe, Wind is less safe (thought not by much). Solar is about the same. This "assessment" is base upon a single image which is being handed up and down the nuclear astro-turf, and it's ignorant and disrespectful. There are still victims of Chernobyl out there, and there will be for generations. You can give them some money to append for the use of this meme: https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ And not only there: https://culturacolectiva.com/en/history/mexico-radioactive-milk-chernobyl/ https://culturacolectiva.com/en/history/mexico-radioactive-m... https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/foodstuffs/mushrooms-game/mushrooms-game_node.html https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/foodstuffs/mush... https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1007843 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1007843 > And the other thing that people don't understand is the energy density of nuclear. Sure they do. They don't care because you know what's even better? The sun in the sky, for example... > Nobody is saying that the accidents are not bad. However, they are not actually that bad. We currently have a country full of reactors which are beyond the time they were supposed to run. Failures, accidents, shutdowns, global warming, etc. are happening to them, but the country doesn't have a diversified energy generation infrastructure. They'll keep it running. Accidents will keep on happening. Meanwhile, the world keeps on turning. Global conflicts are coming nearer. Mad dictators waging wars, drones, hackers, machine learning, are happening. Why would any sane person even think about keeping or even BUILDING new targets in a densely populated area?? > As evidence, I present you Ukraine: the country that had the absolutely worst nuclear accident in the history of the world. Unstable reactor, no containment, authoritarian government with horrible crisis management. And yet, they kept their nuclear reactors. And not just that, they are among the 22 countries that have pledged to triple nuclear output by 2050. They didn't have a choice back then. Now they have other things to care about. Like invading troops hiding their tanks and ammunition WITHIN their nuclear power plants! How the hell is this supposed to be an argument FOR nuclear?!? Btw: I doubt they'll have even a fraction of the required money to build a single reactor in the future once the war is over. Renewables are incoming. And yeah...gota love that "pledge": https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/12/11/nuclear-energy-cop28-electricity-emissions-climate/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/12/11/nuclear-energy-cop28-el... Nuclear has peaked, and even China invests much more in renewables than it said it would invest into nuclear. (The rest has other use: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/19/major-expansion-china-now-has-more-than-500-nukes-pentagon-says-00122440 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/19/major-expansion-chi...) Time's up. Taxpayers will not be ready to waste money on those nonsense projects if the alternatives are cheaper and faster to build. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wind-solar-in-china-generating-2x-nuclear-today-will-be-4x-by-2030/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wind-solar-in-china-gen... https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718 https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718 https://www.ft.com/content/2bccd67f-a3c6-48d1-baa5-8ef9d54cdf67 https://www.ft.com/content/2bccd67f-a3c6-48d1-baa5-8ef9d54cd... > The countries with the most experience with nuclear accidents are aware that these are tradeoffs, and have come to the conclusion that the tradeoffs favor nuclear. No they didn't. They greenwash regulations, rip off taxpayers, renationalize companies responsible for construction and maintenance because they can't survive on their own. It's a complete failure and the time is up. https://about.bnef.com/blog/dead-horse-also-ran-or-unicorn-how-nuclear-fits-with-net-zero/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/dead-horse-also-ran-or-unicorn-h... https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/World-Report-Shows-Nuclear-Energy-Production-Fell-by-4-Last-Year.html https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/World-Rep... https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuclears-share-world-power-output-multi-decade-low-report-2023-12-06/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuclears-share-world...

mpweiher 3y ago
> "assessment" is base upon a single image Incorrect. This assessment is based on the actual data. > https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ A "charity" that's a .com domain and has an illegal "consent" form. (Not all consent forms are illegal, but that one clearly is). Yeah, sure what more reliable source could there possibly be? I actually went through the reports by the WHO. The official reports they did every 10 years after the accident. Did you? Were you even aware of those reports? They are on the WHO website. Each subsequent report lowered the estimate of "negative health effects" from the previous report by an order of magnitude. Yes, that's a factor of 10. Each one, and there have been a number of them. By the last couple, the negative health effects of the evacuation were significantly higher than those of the accident itself. Which has also been the case in Japan. > > And the other thing that people don't understand is the energy density of nuclear. > Sure they do. They don't care because you know what's even better? The sun in the sky, for example... Thanks for so skillfully demonstrating how the lack of understanding of energy density looks like in practice! Very much appreciated. > [Ukraine] How the hell is this supposed to be an argument FOR nuclear?!? Everything you say should be, in your world, the best reasons for getting OUT of nuclear. Yet they are not just not getting out, they want to expand. Maybe they know something you do not? >> The countries with the most experience with nuclear accidents ... favor nuclear. > ...greenwash, rip off, renationalize ... To which you have exactly no response, except that they must all be corrupt and ignorant. Really? That's your position? You know better, the people who actually do have first hand knowledge and hundreds if not thousands of experts know nothing and are all corrupt. Hmm.. Or maybe, just maybe, they know something you do not.
- Krasnol 3y ago
  This is just the first charity I got from google. There are a dozen more. It's ridiculous that the freaking consent form of a website is your argument now. How are you not ashamed, posting this? And no I didn't go through the WHO report (just like you didn't....you didn't even know why Belarus is a topic here so stop lying!), I know people PERSONALLY who are affected by that. Now what? What graphic will you pull out now? In my previous comment, I brought up several sources to support my arguments. You have nothing here. Nothing besides the disgusting attitude you bring up towards those who suffer the technology you worship.