this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
312 points (85.0% liked)
Share Funny Videos, Images, Memes, Quotes and more
2423 readers
1 users here now
#funny
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What comes out of a coal power plant is unburnt coal, which will contain some amount of carbon 14 which is slightly radioactive.
What comes out of a nuclear power station is water vapor. Which is not even slightly radioactive.
Therefore coal power stations output more nuclear material than nuclear power stations, which output none. We live in a world of idiots.
I think we should include nuclear waste in the output calculation of nuclear power plants. Just the high level waste from nuclear power plants is hundreds of thousands times more radioactive and toxic than coal plant output.
But your are right, we should move away from both of these: coal and nuclear power. And this is actually exactly what the German people want and what the government has decided. Ending coal burning is scheduled for 2038 and complete switch to renewable energy production is scheduled for 2045. This is called the Energiewende (Energy Transition) and here is the government's page on this topic: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimaschutz/faq-energiewende-2067498
Google translate: https://www-bundesregierung-de.translate.goog/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimaschutz/faq-energiewende-2067498?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Germans agree with this policy and we even want it faster: https://www.fr.de/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html
Google translate: https://www-fr-de.translate.goog/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Fission is still much less impactful in terms of environmental damage and hazard in the transitionary period.
I think this is only true if you have an adequate storage facility, since IMHO the hazards of storing high level nuclear waste for years on end on the surface level in sixteen different intermediate storage facilities all over Germany are greater for the people, animals, plants...the whole biosphere.
Fission waste is stored in pools and dry casks and never hurts anybody during normal operation.
Coal waste is belched into the atmosphere 24/7 and contains many bad substances aside from the radioactive ones.
Right. During normal operation the risks are minute, but what about threat scenarios outside of normal operation? Starting on page 112 here's a list of possible threat scenarios as compiled by the Fraunhofer institute: https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/ccv/2013/ETTIS_Deliverable_4_4_Catalogue%20of%20Threat%20Scenarios.pdf
That's also true. But again, being in opposition of using nuclear power plants as long as there is no long term storage facility, does not mean I'm a coal proponent. Coal will be phased out in 2038 and the idea is to build 40 green hydrogen power plants, to enable the transition. There will be no new coal power plants build in Germany according to the current plan.
More than 30 years too late... If, instead, these morons had phased out coal FIRST and relied on Nuclear for the transition, how much damage could we have avoided from the imesureable destruction climate change has caused?
I don't know. I can also ask: How much damage could have been avoided if Chernobyl and Fukushima would have not been built. But IMHO this makes no sense since these hypothetical scenarios are not the topic of this discussion.
Sure thing, astroturfer. Funny, 8 months not posting anything, then suddenly defending oil interests like a guard dog.
It's called interest. I made clear on multiple occasions that being against nuclear power does not make me a proponent of fossil fuel power production. I think we have to get rid of fossil fuel power production as well as nuclear power production.
Please refrain from personal attacks and try to discuss using credible sources and arguments. Hers a primer on discussion skills: https://www.student.unsw.edu.au/discussion-skills
Nuclear waste is not even slightly as dangerous as you've been led to believe.
I don't think that's right. There is a real threat from e.g Plutonium 239 which is extremely carcinogenic and toxic in minute doses.
Here's a collection of threats relating to nuclear power production and it's waste starting on page 112: https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/ccv/2013/ETTIS_Deliverable_4_4_Catalogue%20of%20Threat%20Scenarios.pdf
Source: https://www-bund-net.translate.goog/themen/atomkraft/atommuell/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
You've links ETTIS's risk assessment of nuclear accident likelihood and death count predictions. I would not say that ETTIS is exactly anti-nuclear, as they are pro-green. I could not find anywhere where they communicate their methodology to conclude that four nuclear accidents would occur over 50 years, but if its statistically-based I would say that would not be accurate for modern nuclear systems.
Bund is exactly the type of group the comic above is making fun of. They do not care about the actual chances of meltdown, or the overall safety of nuclear byproduct or nuclear plant operation. They only aim to decommision nuclear power production as much as possible.
I am not against hydrogen power. I do not view it as a feasible technology currently, though. It's like fusion reactors - always 10 years away. Meanwhile, nuclear fission is here, we could be using it over coal and saving thousands of lives per year but we aren't.
Renewables are good, but they still cause more fatalities to workers than nuclear plants, and the battery systems and solar systems currently make use nonrenewable rare earth minerals, so I question if renewables are actually as sustainable as advertised.
Chernobyl detonated due to an engineering oversight directly caused from government interference and cost cutting, and was only triggered when a test was rushed, being executed by a shift not trained to conduct the test.
Fukushima Daiichi had an engineering oversight in that they did not design it to withstand the largest earthquake in Japan's history followed by a tsunami. Meanwhile, Fukushima Daiini was closer to the epicenter, and was able to avoid meltdown.
Even when considering the total number of deaths caused by nuclear plants from explosions, exposure, and health complications, nuclear has killed less than a percent of how many coal has killed. The insane level of opposition does not make sense, and seems to me to only be fueled by fearmongering and ignorance.
Maybe that'd be believable if the dumb fucks switched to something other than FUCKING COAL
But burning natural gas is still a-ok under this plan.
I don't think that's true. These are hydrogen power plants. The hydrogen will be produced in times of high yield from renewables and will be used during times of low yield from renewables in order to meet the energy demand
2038? My country stopped burning coal in 2020. This is a piss take by nuclear haters.
What's your argument here? That this could have happened in Germany also? It's true, but it didn't happen here, so we have to deal with the situation at hand.
Yes that's exactly my point. You've been burning coal and will keep burning coal for over a decade because you turned off the nuclear. You should have kept them.
Still it didn't happen and we have to deal with the situation at hand. I don't think there's value in discussing a scenario that is not reality in Germany.
The value is in holding the absolute morons and oil/fossil bootlickers accountable. By the way, you've been quite profilic in defending hydrogen and dismissing the fact that it was a huge mistake to close down nuclear power plants. You don't happen to be an astroturfer by chance, do you?
No argument offered here. Ad hominem fallacy again.
Is it not possible to start them again?
I would also point out that people claiming that stopping nuclear was a success story for the environment are rewriting reality and that everyone else in other countries sees this.
No it's not possible at the moment because there's a law in place called the "Atomgesetz" which would have to be changed first and there is no support in the populace for that. Five of the six power plants that have been shutdown in the past few years could technically be restarted in 1-2 years but the 2000 personnel required are not available anymore, and won't come back if there's no perspective for next couple of years. This perspective does not exist in Germany at the moment, since the plan is to move to renewables and green hydrogen power plants.
Sources: https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/energie/energie-forderungen-aus-bayern-lassen-sich-stillgelegte-atomkraftwerke-einfach-wieder-hochfahren/28550996.html
https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/wissen/atomkraft-deutschland-debatte-wiedereinstieg-klimaziele-100.html
That's a shame. Still it is technically possible, this is a political issue more than anything by the sounds of it.
It's a social issue. There is no acceptance in the populace and politicians have only reacted to that.
Social issues are political issues
Sure, but the difference is unburnt coal is a negative externality, and nuclear waste is a negative internality (I don't think this is a word, but it should be). Unburnt coal is not handled by the people producing it, and it's forced on everyone else. Nuclear waste is easily controlled and managed, and paid for by the people producing it. That's part of the reason nuclear costs what it costs. It doesn't hurt anyone and takes up a very small amount of space. Contained in a concrete container, you can stand around it, lick it, or do whatever else you want with it with essentially zero risk. The biggest issue with nuclear is just the bureaucracy that makes them take so long to build that they can't help with the current issue, and that's also why micro-reactors are being looked into more seriously lately.
Being against nuclear power does not make me a fossil fuel proponent. We should aim for 100% renewables. Also nuclear power very much hurt tens of thousands of people by causing cancer in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/lisbeth-gronlund/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated/
Yeah, Chernobyl was a big mistake and a fluke. The odds of it happening were super low, and the issue has since been fixed so won't happen again. Three Mile Island caused very little harm, and the second reactor kept operating for decades. (Chernobyl also had other reactors operating for decades.)
People die all the time. Solar kills more people than nuclear per kwh, believe it or not. No solution causes zero harm and/or damage, including renewable. We need to just utilize the best options available for any given situation and not ignore some because we're emotionally swayed. Statistically, the nuclear power we have today is some of the safest, cleanest, cheapest energy sources available, but we've made it almost impossible to expand in a reasonable fashion, yet coal plants don't have the same issue.
The half life of C14 is about 4500 years. Due to the age of coal, generally millions on years it tends to contain crazy small amounts of C14, just like petrol.
Crazy small amounts is still a larger amount than zero.