3 ms·

>Nuclear waste is both solved and largely a non-problem Is that burying it deep underground? Safety? Three-mile island? Chernobyl? The one in Japan? Ok, earth

>Nuclear waste is both solved and largely a non-problem Is that burying it deep underground? Safety? Three-mile island? Chernobyl? The one in Japan? Ok, earthquake zone so not a good idea anyway. I heard the French nuclear program has a 100% safety record. But that could be false to keep the public in board with it. Wouldn't wind and solar be the way to go? U don't need a big centralised for profit energy source.

mpweiher 2y ago
All the nuclear accidents (and Fukushima was a Tsunami that did a lot more damage than that nuclear plant) did far, far less damage than people initially predicted, and even with those entirely avoidable accidents, nuclear is still one of the safest forms of energy generation we have. Wind turbines are significantly more dangerous, never mind fossil fuels. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy See also: Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nu...
LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
> The one in Japan? Ok, earthquake zone so not a good idea anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daini_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daini_Nuclear_Power_... < This one, just a few miles away worked according to plan, and was a base for safe operations in all that chaos that ensued, because Fukushima Daichi was planned bad, ignoring hundreds of years of local knowledge, including stone markers which showed how high former tsunamis reached there. And then putting emergency infrastructure below that line, also not installing available systems which would have stopped the hydrogen explosions from happening. Chernobyl? Human stupidity commited by 'Apparatshiks'. TMI? Shrug. Shit happens. Was there more than a great panic about not that much? Is there a large exclusion zone? Was there ever one? > Is that burying it deep underground? Yes, why not? It's perfectly workable to 'feel good' about it, though not strictly necessary. The Fins do it. The US could have this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r... , the opposition against that is ridiculous, considering Nevada is irradiated anyway because of all the nuclear testing there :) Otherwise: Eminent domain! Comply or die!
- tharmas 2y ago
  >Chernobyl? Human stupidity commited by 'Apparatshiks'. This is partly my point. Nuclear is dangerous because idiots can make mistakes. Can you do that with wind and solar? Yes, there are lots of things that, in the hands of idiots, can be a disaster but I think Nuclear Power is one of the most dangerous. So far we've avoided annihilation via Nuclear Weapons but lately that's become a concern again. It all depends on who is running the show. And that to repeat is my concern over Nuclear Power.

mpweiher 2y ago

All the nuclear accidents (and Fukushima was a Tsunami that did a lot more damage than that nuclear plant) did far, far less damage than people initially predicted, and even with those entirely avoidable accidents, nuclear is still one of the safest forms of energy generation we have. Wind turbines are significantly more dangerous, never mind fossil fuels. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy See also: Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nu...

LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago

> The one in Japan? Ok, earthquake zone so not a good idea anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daini_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daini_Nuclear_Power_... < This one, just a few miles away worked according to plan, and was a base for safe operations in all that chaos that ensued, because Fukushima Daichi was planned bad, ignoring hundreds of years of local knowledge, including stone markers which showed how high former tsunamis reached there. And then putting emergency infrastructure below that line, also not installing available systems which would have stopped the hydrogen explosions from happening. Chernobyl? Human stupidity commited by 'Apparatshiks'. TMI? Shrug. Shit happens. Was there more than a great panic about not that much? Is there a large exclusion zone? Was there ever one? > Is that burying it deep underground? Yes, why not? It's perfectly workable to 'feel good' about it, though not strictly necessary. The Fins do it. The US could have this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r... , the opposition against that is ridiculous, considering Nevada is irradiated anyway because of all the nuclear testing there :) Otherwise: Eminent domain! Comply or die!

tharmas 2y ago
>Chernobyl? Human stupidity commited by 'Apparatshiks'. This is partly my point. Nuclear is dangerous because idiots can make mistakes. Can you do that with wind and solar? Yes, there are lots of things that, in the hands of idiots, can be a disaster but I think Nuclear Power is one of the most dangerous. So far we've avoided annihilation via Nuclear Weapons but lately that's become a concern again. It all depends on who is running the show. And that to repeat is my concern over Nuclear Power.