Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Nuclear power plants won't help solve the climate crisis.
They take too long to build.
While the risk of a catastrophic failure is very low, its effects are so bad they can't be included in any sensible risk assessment.
They prolong the dependence on energy companies that are too big to fail and can therefore blackmail the government.
They depend on enormous amounts of water for cooling, at a time when rivers frequently get too warm for that due to climate change.
They run on a non-renewable fuel source that is imported from politically instable countries.
And when you include the cost of building them, insuring them, dismantling them and dealing with their waste, they're simply not economical.
The only way to run them is with massive subsidies and unconditional securities from the state. I.e. tax money being funnelled to big corporations.
How long from "design concept" till enough are tested, certified and built to help combat climate change? We have about 20 years left to transform our energy sector if you're optimistic. Building one with the old proven design takes about 15 years.
But there are solutions that simply require building more small units of something that's been built in large numbers for the past decade.
I'm talking about solar panels and wind turbines.
Source? I'd say the median is closer to 8, 15 years is more like the worst 5-15% percentile.
This highlights issues with using capitalism and some human mindsets
nuclear power plants are way too vulnerable and dangerous of a terrorist target.
Wtf are you talking about? Nuclear power facilities are freaking huge and have top notch security. You ain't getting anywhere near any place you could ever do any damage. And since everybody who's supposed to be there needs clearance, it's easy to have strict security protocols in place. Anybody who isn't supposed to be there or takes anything in or out they aren't supposed to is identified easily and taken care of.
Any nuclear facility is more worried about espionage than any kind of attack. Even if you are able to bomb a part of it, worst case it will be shutdown for repairs for a while and maybe kill a dozen or so people who are near the bomb as it goes off. Something like a crowded square in a city centre is a much easier target for terrorism and probably has more impact in the causing fear department than bombing some energy facility.
So no, denying nuclear power based on fear of terrorism isn't only unfounded, it's also exactly what the terrorists want. Fuck them guys, don't give in to fear.
And in case you don't know: a nuclear power plant is not a nuclear bomb, it can't become a nuclear bomb and it doesn't contain any materials to create a nuclear bomb. Just because they both contain the word nuclear and work on a fission principle, doesn't mean they are the same thing.
(I blame the recent Chernobyl series for fueling the fear of nuclear once again. You should know that whilst it is a good series, it is not a documentary and they dropped the ball hard on all the science parts)
These all are valid points. From the technological point of view nuclear technology is pretty safe and the margin of error is rather low. There are many redundant fail-save measurements to retain a save operation. But if something will happen, it will be devestating. Most famous incident is Chernobyl. Also, nuclear waste management is a huge issue. Not many (if any) locations for waste storage have the capability for eternal storage. The Asse II mine for instance is a former salt mine which has been re-purposed as a deep geological repository. It was supposed to last alt least several thousand years. After only 30 years of usage it has been detected that water seeps into the vault which leads to corrosion of the barrels filled with nuclear waste which ~~will result~~ already resulted in a release of radioactive elements. This is how the barrels were handled and stored. I am no expert but thirty years into almost eternity is a pretty bad figure.
And there is another thing - and in my opinion this is a really serious one: Nucular power plants are operated by corporations within the private sector. This means that such a power plant is conducted with an economical focus (= profit). The incentive to make profit will result in skipping maintenance, bribing inspectors and downplaying any technical difficulties. Even when assumed that all the other issues (waste management etc.) are solved, every technical malfunction that resulted in the leakage of radioactive material woult be not be made public voluntarily. There were many incidents that have been made public, because the law required them to do so.. The hidden number of incidents that were not required to be made public is probably much higher.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_of_nuclear_plants_to_attack#:~:text=Nuclear%20reactors%20become%20preferred%20targets,%2C%20occupations%2C%20invasions%20and%20campaigns.
Yes military targets, as are most energy production facilities. Any part of critical infrastructure is a prime military target. Just ask the people of Taiwan.
This has nothing to do with terrorism and certainly isn't a reason not to build them. Whatever replacement you have for them, would then become the target. This is common sense.
I would also say that being energy independent is a deterrent to all out war, as it removes leverage one party may have over another. With a balanced field of power, total war becomes less likely.
Also by the time Western Europe / Mainland US is under military assault and our allies can't protect our critical infrastructure, we have much bigger concerns.
hehehe, plane goes boom
Honestly if the UK can spend a couple of decades with half a hiroshimas worth of high explosives sitting unguarded within sight of London I think a nuclear facility with actual security will be fine.