4 ms·
coal kills more people, this is a fact. so with blocking nuclear lead to coal, so they indirectly supportered killing thousands, incredible stats really. who
by kingleopold 5mo ago
coal kills more people, this is a fact. so with blocking nuclear lead to coal, so they indirectly supportered killing thousands, incredible stats really.
who said art can't be bad for the public?
- kev009 5mo agoA hidden danger of coal is ironically the radioactivity of its waste, which gets put into concrete products and contribute to indoor air quality issues. The paranoia around nuclear power is tied to generational fear mongering of governments during the Cold War. The oddest part is why not use safer reactor designs; water reactors make sense for the US Navy and not on land.
- mejutoco 5mo ago> The paranoia around nuclear power is tied to generational fear mongering of governments during the Cold War And Chernobyl. And Fukushima. Nuclear is great but it has some very real risks
- ndsipa_pomu 5mo agoDon't forget Windscale and Three Mile Island
- butlike 5mo agoNuclear won't be ready until fusion (so if ever). The only safe nuclear is when the byproduct is helium
- amanaplanacanal 5mo agoJust for curiosity, are there proposed fusion reactor designs that don't create nuclear waste? I haven't followed what's going on in that space at all.
- butlike 5mo agoAll fusion reactors by definition (to my understanding) don't produce the same waste we're used to since it doesn't require fission. The byproduct is literally helium. If a catastrophe happens, the reactor implodes instead of explodes, so the concern for the surrounding environs is far less than with fission reactors. The only issue is that fusion reactors have been perpetually out-of-reach for decades.
- 9dev 5mo agoNone of you ever manages to answer the waste storage question. That was, and still is, one of the deciding factors in Germany, for example.
- account42 5mo agoBecause its an irrelevant problem. The amount of waste nuclear produces is miniscule.
- 9dev 5mo agoIt’s only irrelevant to you as long as it doesn’t leak into your ground water supply after a few decades down the line, when we discover the containment didn’t resist corrosion as well as we thought. The danger of nuclear waste does not correspond to the amount at all.
- lostlogin 5mo ago> The amount of waste nuclear produces is miniscule. And yet people worry about it and the OP claims it led to the situation in Germany. Maybe addressing the issue needs to occur, rather than dismissing it?
- roryirvine 5mo agoMiniscule, yet extremely dangerous and incredibly difficult & expensive to deal with. The estimated cost of making the UK's current stock of waste safe is currently £136bn, for a value of "safe" that leaves at least one of the high level waste pools being at an "intolerable" level of risk of leaking into groundwater until the late 2050s. For comparison, the estimated cost of achieving net zero in the UK by 2050 is £110bn.
- rob74 5mo agoThen again, if we hadn't had the Cold War and the associated nuclear arms race, we wouldn't have had civil nuclear power either, so...
- Tangurena2 5mo agoAccording to the author of The Curve of Binding Energy [0], civil reactors were being subsidized by the purchase of plutonium (from the spent fuel rods) by the Department of Energy [1] to the tune of $1,000,000 per kg of Pu. The end of this program was coincidentally at about the same time as the Three Mile Island incident which leads many people to think that reaction to TMI was the reason that US reactor construction stopped. When the Senate ratified some non-proliferation treaties, that also ended reprocessing spent fuel in the US which gets blamed on Carter. Notes: 0 - https://www.amazon.com/Curve-Binding-Energy-Alarming-Theodore/dp/0374515980 https://www.amazon.com/Curve-Binding-Energy-Alarming-Theodor... 1 - The DOE owns all of the US nuclear weapons and leases them to the DOD.