this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
306 points (93.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43741 readers
1865 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why are people so against nuclear? It doesn't make any sense.
Nuclear is probably the safest form of power when proper protocols are put in place but it's hard to do that when the largest country in Europe (Russia, both by size and population) is currently in a war
This. Nuclear safety requires active habit keeping and protocols, hence is dependent on social stability.
Safer than wind and solar?
Oddly enough, it's safer than wind.
Solar's a little better in that regard, but all three are so much safer than any high-carbon sources of energy that any of them are great options.
I can't look at their sources, so I'm going to believe them, buuut that is death per energy units. And I can't argue that nuclear isn't more efficient and generally safe. Presumably though, those injuries from wind are from construction primarily? Nuclear power plants have been out of fashion since the 80s for some reason, so there aren't really equal opportunities for construction incidents to compare that while wind construction has been on the rise. And I can only assume that after construction, the chance incidents only go down for wind while they can really only go up for nuclear.
None of that is to say that nuclear is bad and we shouldn't use it. Statistics like this just always bug me. Globally we receive more energy from wind than nuclear. It stands to reason that there's more opportunity for deaths. It's a 1 dimensional stat that can easily be manipulated. it's per thousand terawatt per hour, including deaths from pollution. So I got curious and did some Googling.
After sorting through a bunch of sites without quite the information I was looking for, I found some interesting facts. I was wrong in my assertion that wind deaths don't go up after being built. Turns out, most of those deaths come from maintenance. It does seem to vary by country, and I can't find it broken down by country like I wanted. It's possible that safety protections for workers could shift it. But surprisingly, maintenance deaths from nuclear power are virtually non existent from what I can tell. It seems like the main thing putting nuclear on that list at all is including major incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Well, Fukushima has really only been attributed for 4 deaths total. And Chernobyl was obviously preventable. So it looks like you're right! Statistically, when including context, is definitely the least deadly energy source (if we ignore solar).
I believe so because of construction injuries but idk how well that scales
Russian war has little to do with it. For example Germany had already decided to scrap nuclear for gas, which actually bit them in the ass when the war started.
You're right with Germany's decision.
The reason why Russia is mentioned might be that Russia (and one of their close allies Kazakhstan) are the source of a good chunk of the Uranium that's used in Europe's nuclear power plants.
Sweden has large stores of uranium but the green party has opposed any new mines (uranium or not) on environmental grounds. Ignoring the fact that we then have to import resources from other countries that don't have regulations which could minimize pollution
What is safe on Nuckear Power Plants?
It's enough for hundredthousand of years, if only one time happens a SuperGAU. Only once is enough.
And the nuclear waste is dangerous as fuck for also hundredthousand of years.
And you can produce 30, 40 or maybe 50 years electric energy, and it needs the same time to decontaminate and dismantle a nuclear powerplant. And before it takes 20, 30 or mor years, to build such a plant... This is not cheap, not safe and not sustainable.
I don't trust the US Federal government to properly dispose of it. The waste from the Manhattan Project is buried in a landfill, a landfill that's on fire.
The problem isn't fire, it's that the waste at Hanford has leached into the soil and a plume of it is headed towards the Hanford Reach on the Columbia River. There's a mitigation plan in place and it looks like it's ultimately going to work, but it's very expensive and not something that anyone wants to see happen again.
I was referring to the Westlake Superfund site in St Louis right next to the Missouri river
Fair play. That said, please do look up Hanford. It's way bigger than Westlake and is potentially a much bigger problem, though granted, Westlake is problematic as well.
Nuclear waste is not dangerous when handled correctly. I'd recommend checking out Kyle Hill on YouTube about this, but when mixed with cement/sand in large amounts it becomes safe much more quickly than that. A lot of the dangers of nuclear power are actually misconceptions
Yes yes, we know people don't understand statistics.
I'm looking forward to seeing your Instagram snaps once you move back to pripyat permanently. Statistics never tell the full story.
Ah yes, the clusterfuck of the 20th century is the lode stone
Also Pripyat isn't that bad.
If you're referring to the nukes-are-statistically-safe argument, then to be fair, you also have to take into account the scale of their failures.
Right it would be something involving number of people harmed, for number of joules or watt-hours of energy produced. How much injury, death, etc is there on a per-unit basis. That would be how you'd get a probability of harm. Then you could compare it numerically with other forms of energy to see which is the safest, statistically speaking.
Time to start dismantling wind turbines then? https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
3 Mile Island occurred while "The China Syndrome" was in theaters.
That's mostly it. A hit-job sensationalist film came out right before a minor incident that resulted in ZERO injuries, damage to the environment, or loss of containment, but was major news largely because of the film.
Because of Godzilla is my best guess. CGI is so good these days people think itβs real.
Nuclear power is a bit like aviation. Statistically, traveling by airliner is the safest way to travel; it's been over a decade since the last fatal crash of an American-registered airliner. But when a plane does crash, SHEEW BUDDY does it make the evening news.
Nuclear power has that same effect. Statistically, nuclear power has a fucking amazing safety record. Very, very few people are hurt or killed in the nuclear power industry, especially compared to the fossil fuel industry, and the second hand smoke factor is non-existent as long as the plant is operating correctly. But as soon as it does go wrong, SHEEW BUDDY does it make the evening news. And it has gone wrong, multiple times, in spectacular fashion.
A major concern I have about building new nuclear power plants is my government is trying as hard as it can to steer into the hard right anti-science anti-regulation of industry space, and successful, safe operation of nuclear power plants requires strong understanding of science and heavy government oversight. The fact that we have no plan whatsoever for the nuclear waste we're already generating, and that no serious solution is on the horizon indicates to me that we are already not in a place where we should be doing this.
There's also the concern that nuclear power programs are often related to manufacturing fuel for nuclear weapons. That that's what the megalomaniacal assholes that are somehow "in charge" actually want nuclear power plants for, and megawatts of electricity to run civilization with is a cute bonus I guess.
What an excellent explanation you've written here. I love it. SHEEW BUDDY!
it's not about the power but about the waste. no one wants that in their backyard.
It's been long established that coal produces more radioactive waste than nuclear power, and largely dumps it straight into the environment.
Somehow people think it's worse if you keep it contained rather than massively diluted. If we thought of it like we do radiation in coal waste, we'd be happy to just dump it in the ocean.
Living in Finland, I'm proud of the fact that we've got one of the first long-term/final storage sites for nuclear waste in the world. YIMBY.
You guys have that super deep underground storage site right?
Real talk, why can't we just launch that shit into the sun? Obviously, I understand the risk of a rocket filled with spent fuel rods exploding is low Earth orbit and the weight to cost ratio, but are there other reasons?
It's insanely more expensive than any of the other options, even the long-term storage deep down underground with further burial and complete abandonment of the location in a way that would make the location as unremarkable as possible, preventing future generations developing interest to potential markings.
Tom Scott has a great, rather concise video about that. It's not really just ground, but rock, making it even more secure and unaffected, especially given that the waste is first sealen into special containers.
The waste is vitrified, meaning that it's encased in what's basically solid glass.
Basically to put something in the sun youβve got to bring it to a near-standstill relative to the sun. You have to slow it down from the speed Earth is orbiting at (2 * Pi AU/year) to almost zero. It takes a ton of rocket fuel to do that.
That plus the danger you mentioned makes burying it the cheaper and safer option.
It's literally easier to launch something outside the solar system than launching it into the sun.
π€£
Fukushima and Chernobyl kinda stick out. Nuclear is safe until something goes catastrophically wrong. When that happens it's 100s and 1000s of years before you can move back in and have a stable genome.
I agree that it shouldn't be a matter of being for or against nuclear.
The best mix of renewable energy supply of any country is going to be very context dependent. Geothermal, hydro, solar, wind all perform best when they're used in the right location. Nuclear energy is much more expensive per Megawatthour than renewable energy sources, but it's highly predictable.
In addition to the high cost, the construction time of a nuclear power plant tends to be somewhere between 10-20 years. Therefore, it makes sense to find solutions first in grid balancing solutions like mega batteries (for balancing, not long term storage), smart EV chargers, and matching demand better with supply through variable pricing. These are all relatively affordable solutions that would reduce the need for a predictable energy supply like nuclear.
But, if the measures above are not enough or if there are concerns about the feasibility of such measures in a particular context, then analyses might point towards nuclear as a solution as the most cost effective solution.
It's pointless to make nuclear power a polical issue while we're rapidly approaching an irreversible climate crisis. We don't have the luxury to act based on preferences. Policymakers shouldn't view nuclear power as a taboo, but also shouldn't opt to construct one simply to attract voters.
Back then, it was scared of what you don't understand. Nuclear was bombs and radiation, bad stuff right. Then it was Chernobyl. And having talked with some of them online, they are scared that it's not 10,000% safe.