4 ms·

Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

by sunaookami 6mo ago

yawaramin 6mo ago
But they're not entitled to their own facts.
- TheOtherHobbes 6mo ago
  The facts are that all large nuclear plants require a stable water supply, and climate change directly threatens that. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X24000725 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X2...
  - Manuel_D 6mo ago
    To be clear, all thermal plants - be they nuclear, fossil fuel, biofuel, etc. - require water for cooling. But this doesn't need to be freshwater, many nuclear plants are cooled with seawater. In non-costal arid areas, nuclear plants can be cooled with sewer water: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_... Electricity demand is concentrated in population centers, which themselves require water and produce sewage as a byproduct. Thus it's pretty rare for a place with strong electricity demand to simultaneously have a shortage of water available for cooling. In places with limited freshwater supply, this results in plants using wastewater. Again, thermal plants of all kinds need cooling. Nuclear changes nothing relative to the status quo in this regard.
  - Moldoteck 6mo ago
    water isn't an issue. You can use cooling towers, wastewater or even dry cooling
- frollogaston 6mo ago
  There's not much trust in anyone who says nuclear is completely safe, "we fixed it now," etc. That shouldn't be the motto. But fossil fuel is already killing more people, coal puts more radioactive uranium dust into the air even, and that's before getting into climate change. I think people who are anti-nuclear and environmentalist are wrong, but it's not an insane opinion to have. There's no fact you can point to that says nuclear is safer than renewables. I just don't see how the world is realistically going to switch to renewables. We've already seen oil companies use those as distractions from nuclear.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - mpweiher 6mo ago
    Nothing man-made is "completely safe". No such thing. However, nuclear energy is the safest form of energy production we have. By far. And that includes Chernobyl and Fukushima. People overestimate the danger from nuclear energy by incredible amounts. That doesn't mean that close exposure to a running nuclear reactor won't kill you in short order. That's why we build these things with shielding. A lot of other things will kill you in short order if exposed to them: cars/trains in motion, for example.
  - Moldoteck 6mo ago
    nuclear isnt fully safe, but it's fine https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy And enviromental impact is low too https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20...

Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

yawaramin 6mo ago

But they're not entitled to their own facts.

TheOtherHobbes 6mo ago
The facts are that all large nuclear plants require a stable water supply, and climate change directly threatens that. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X24000725 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X2...
- Manuel_D 6mo ago
  To be clear, all thermal plants - be they nuclear, fossil fuel, biofuel, etc. - require water for cooling. But this doesn't need to be freshwater, many nuclear plants are cooled with seawater. In non-costal arid areas, nuclear plants can be cooled with sewer water: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_... Electricity demand is concentrated in population centers, which themselves require water and produce sewage as a byproduct. Thus it's pretty rare for a place with strong electricity demand to simultaneously have a shortage of water available for cooling. In places with limited freshwater supply, this results in plants using wastewater. Again, thermal plants of all kinds need cooling. Nuclear changes nothing relative to the status quo in this regard.
- Moldoteck 6mo ago
  water isn't an issue. You can use cooling towers, wastewater or even dry cooling
frollogaston 6mo ago
There's not much trust in anyone who says nuclear is completely safe, "we fixed it now," etc. That shouldn't be the motto. But fossil fuel is already killing more people, coal puts more radioactive uranium dust into the air even, and that's before getting into climate change. I think people who are anti-nuclear and environmentalist are wrong, but it's not an insane opinion to have. There's no fact you can point to that says nuclear is safer than renewables. I just don't see how the world is realistically going to switch to renewables. We've already seen oil companies use those as distractions from nuclear.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- mpweiher 6mo ago
  Nothing man-made is "completely safe". No such thing. However, nuclear energy is the safest form of energy production we have. By far. And that includes Chernobyl and Fukushima. People overestimate the danger from nuclear energy by incredible amounts. That doesn't mean that close exposure to a running nuclear reactor won't kill you in short order. That's why we build these things with shielding. A lot of other things will kill you in short order if exposed to them: cars/trains in motion, for example.
- Moldoteck 6mo ago
  nuclear isnt fully safe, but it's fine https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy And enviromental impact is low too https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20...