3 ms·

Because people have a completely wrong impression of the scale of nuclear waste. In the Netherlands there is a museum inside their nuclear waste repository - yo

Because people have a completely wrong impression of the scale of nuclear waste. In the Netherlands there is a museum inside their nuclear waste repository - you can literally walk right up to the barrels containing nuclear waste, it's open to the members of the public. https://www.covra.nl/en/radioactive-waste/the-art-of-preservation/ https://www.covra.nl/en/radioactive-waste/the-art-of-preserv... And I don't remember the exact number, but I'm sure I read somewhere that all of world's highly radioactive nuclear waste(spent fuel) could fit in several olympic swimming pools - while this coal power plant produced 1000 tonnes(!!!!) a day(!!!) of coal soot. The scale is just completely incomparable. But people look at Chernobyl or Fukishima and think that the exclusion zones created by those events are inherently a feature of nuclear power - when they are not.

immibis 2y ago
Radioactive clouds and exclusion zones are inherent features of nuclear power the way that buffer overflows and remote code execution are inherent features of C.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  True, but if you add up Chernobyl, Fukushima and all other nuclear disasters per MHw generated coal is still many times more harmful and killed way more people. And of course Chernobyl couldn’t have happened in the US, France, Britain or any other country run by extremely incompetent halfwits.
- troupo 2y ago
  ~500 000 people dead from dam failures, and we still build hydroelectric plants. Hiroshima is a city of 2 million people even though it was the epicenter of a nuclear explosion.
  - myrmidon 2y ago
    Those arguments are misguided or even deliberately misleading. People don't die from flooding because of dams, people die from flooding despite dams. Deaths from flooding would not vanish (or even decrease) if we stopped using hydroelectricity/building dams. Hiroshima was not significantly contaminated by radioactive material because the bomb dropped on it was not designed to do so (compare later speculative Cobalt-60 based designs), and the low amount of fissile material made incidental contamination a non-issue.
    - troupo 2y ago
      > People don't die from flooding because of dams, people die from flooding despite dams. Deaths from flooding would not vanish (or even decrease) if we stopped using hydroelectricity/building dams. wat --- start quote --- In August 1975, the Banqiao Dam and 61 others throughout Henan, China, collapsed following the landfall of Typhoon Nina. The dam collapse created the third-deadliest flood in history which affected 12,000 km2 (3 million acres) with a total population of 10.15 million, including around 30 cities and counties, with estimates of the death toll ranging from 26,000 to 240,000. The flood also caused the collapse of 5 million to 6.8 million houses --- end quote --- This was literally caused by dam failures. And yet somehow we still build hydroelectric plants. By your flawed logic we should've stopped building them years ago. Because multiple human deaths, destruction and ecological disaster are literally built into every single dam. Just in 2018 the Oroville Dam failure caused the evacuation of 180 000 people. That's more people than were evacuated due to Fukushima.
      - myrmidon 2y ago
        You missed my point completely. That dam was built to prevent and mitigate damage during floods (besides producing electricity). Was it built to insufficient specifications? Absolutely! But building less dams does NOT lead to less victims during flooding, because the flooding then just happens completely uncontrolled. Spoiler alert: "Just not build any dams" doesn't do shit against flooding if you get 1m of rainfall within a day, and the people just die from starvation/infectious diseases instead (which is the source of >50% of the victims in the Banqiao incident, too), possibly in even greater numbers, because you have flooding everywhere. > Just in 2018 the Oroville Dam failure caused the evacuation of 180 000 people. That's more people than were evacuated due to Fukushima. Are you suggesting that we would have to evacute less people during rain if we did not build dams? Because that is the critical flaw in your argument that I'm pointing out.
        troupo 2y ago
        > That dam was built to prevent and mitigate damage during floods (besides producing electricity). Please educate yourself on how hydroelectric dams are constructed. And a large number of other dams are built not to prevent flooding, but to create water reservoirs and/or stem river flows. > Are you suggesting that we would have to evacute less people during rain if we did not build dams? In the absolute vast majority of hydroelectric dams, yes. Following your logic, we should immediately stop because human deaths and devastation are built in to the dams
potato3732842 2y ago
IIRC, and I forget where I know this from so it might be bullshit, but the energy required to live a lifetime at a western lifestyle creates a grapefruit sized volume of the "highly dangerous don't go near this" type waste.

immibis 2y ago

Radioactive clouds and exclusion zones are inherent features of nuclear power the way that buffer overflows and remote code execution are inherent features of C.

wqaatwt 2y ago
True, but if you add up Chernobyl, Fukushima and all other nuclear disasters per MHw generated coal is still many times more harmful and killed way more people. And of course Chernobyl couldn’t have happened in the US, France, Britain or any other country run by extremely incompetent halfwits.
troupo 2y ago
~500 000 people dead from dam failures, and we still build hydroelectric plants. Hiroshima is a city of 2 million people even though it was the epicenter of a nuclear explosion.
- myrmidon 2y ago
  Those arguments are misguided or even deliberately misleading. People don't die from flooding because of dams, people die from flooding despite dams. Deaths from flooding would not vanish (or even decrease) if we stopped using hydroelectricity/building dams. Hiroshima was not significantly contaminated by radioactive material because the bomb dropped on it was not designed to do so (compare later speculative Cobalt-60 based designs), and the low amount of fissile material made incidental contamination a non-issue.
  - troupo 2y ago
    > People don't die from flooding because of dams, people die from flooding despite dams. Deaths from flooding would not vanish (or even decrease) if we stopped using hydroelectricity/building dams. wat --- start quote --- In August 1975, the Banqiao Dam and 61 others throughout Henan, China, collapsed following the landfall of Typhoon Nina. The dam collapse created the third-deadliest flood in history which affected 12,000 km2 (3 million acres) with a total population of 10.15 million, including around 30 cities and counties, with estimates of the death toll ranging from 26,000 to 240,000. The flood also caused the collapse of 5 million to 6.8 million houses --- end quote --- This was literally caused by dam failures. And yet somehow we still build hydroelectric plants. By your flawed logic we should've stopped building them years ago. Because multiple human deaths, destruction and ecological disaster are literally built into every single dam. Just in 2018 the Oroville Dam failure caused the evacuation of 180 000 people. That's more people than were evacuated due to Fukushima.
    - myrmidon 2y ago
      You missed my point completely. That dam was built to prevent and mitigate damage during floods (besides producing electricity). Was it built to insufficient specifications? Absolutely! But building less dams does NOT lead to less victims during flooding, because the flooding then just happens completely uncontrolled. Spoiler alert: "Just not build any dams" doesn't do shit against flooding if you get 1m of rainfall within a day, and the people just die from starvation/infectious diseases instead (which is the source of >50% of the victims in the Banqiao incident, too), possibly in even greater numbers, because you have flooding everywhere. > Just in 2018 the Oroville Dam failure caused the evacuation of 180 000 people. That's more people than were evacuated due to Fukushima. Are you suggesting that we would have to evacute less people during rain if we did not build dams? Because that is the critical flaw in your argument that I'm pointing out.
      - troupo 2y ago
        > That dam was built to prevent and mitigate damage during floods (besides producing electricity). Please educate yourself on how hydroelectric dams are constructed. And a large number of other dams are built not to prevent flooding, but to create water reservoirs and/or stem river flows. > Are you suggesting that we would have to evacute less people during rain if we did not build dams? In the absolute vast majority of hydroelectric dams, yes. Following your logic, we should immediately stop because human deaths and devastation are built in to the dams

potato3732842 2y ago

IIRC, and I forget where I know this from so it might be bullshit, but the energy required to live a lifetime at a western lifestyle creates a grapefruit sized volume of the "highly dangerous don't go near this" type waste.