1026
nuclear (mander.xyz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Oneser@lemm.ee -5 points 6 days ago

Sure, nuclear energy is valid and all, but you sound like an absolute spanner...

If you want to argue that nuclear energy has its place, maybe don't ridicule people who remember how much of an issue the last major nuclear meltdown was (and partially is).

[-] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

N stiwtosotsotskgsgms

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

Fukushima has barely any fall out though, does it. And the nuclear energy sector is moving towards even safer methods with SMRs that are self contained and just can't have a runaway reaction AFAIK

[-] ahornsirup@feddit.org -4 points 6 days ago

But Fukushima did render a fairly large area uninhabitable, and the ongoing cleanup is still costing billions every year.

Also, there's still no solution to nuclear waste beyond burying it and hoping that no one digs it up.

Renewables exist, and, combined with upgrading the grid and adding sufficient storage facilities, can provide for 100% of electricity demand at all times. Without any of the risks associated with nuclear power (low as they may be, they exist), and without kicking a radioactive can down the road for hundreds of generations.

[-] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago

Uninhabitable? Most of the evacuations were unnecessary, and there would have been less loss-of-life if most people sheltered in-place. In the year following the event, nearby residents received less than 20% of lifetime natural background radiation, about 2 chest CT scans, or a bit more than an airline crew, and less than a heavy smoker.

As for waste, dry casks are plenty good. The material is glassified, so it can't leach into ground water, and the concrete casing means you get less radiation by sitting next to one, as even natural background radiation is partially blocked. Casks are also dense enough for on-site storage, needing only a small lot to store the lifetime fuel use of any plant. A pro and a con of this method is that the fuel is difficult to retrieve from the glass, which is bad for fuel reprocessing, but good for preventing easy weapons manufacturing.

Meanwhile, coal pollution kills some 8 million people annually, and because the grid is already set up for it, when nuclear plants close they are replaced with coal or oil plants.

Upgrading the grid is expensive, and large-scale storage is difficult, and often untested. Pumped hydro is great for those places that can manage it, but the needed storage is far greater, and in locations without damable areas. Not only would unprecidented storage be necessary, but also a grid that's capable of moving energy between multiple focus points, instead of simply out of a plant. These aren't impossible challenges, but the solutions aren't here yet, and nuclear can fill the gap between decommissioning fossil fuels and effective baseline storage.

Solar and Wind don't have the best disposal record either, with more efficient PV cells needing more exotic resources, and the simple bulk of wind turbines making them difficult to dispose of. And batteries are famously toxic and/or explosive. Once again, these challenges have solutions, but they aren't mature and countries will stick with proven methods untill they are. That means more fossil fuels killing more people unnecessary. Nuclear can save those people today, and then allow renewable grids to be built when they are ready.

[-] tamal3@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

100% minus the energy requirements of AI 🫠

Also, there’s still no solution to nuclear waste beyond burying it and hoping that no one digs it up.

what about shit like lead? Or arsenic? That shit doesn't go away, yet we still use it all over the place, maybe not arsenic, but still lead is huge.

But Fukushima did render a fairly large area uninhabitable, and the ongoing cleanup is still costing billions every year.

ironically, there has been research to determine that a lot of the initial evacuation actually exposed people to MORE radiation, than had they not evacuated, interestingly, they did see an increase in cancer rates, and what not, down the road. However, it wasn't statistically significant compared to other stats from other places.

So even if it did matter, it seems in terms of healthcare, it was a statistical anomaly, more than a concern.

Plus now we have some really cool radiation detecting networks that are volunteer(?) led, it's been a while since i've read into this, but these systems give us a MUCH better idea of what's happening now with radiation, than when it happened. So if it did happen again, the results would be even better.

this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
1026 points (96.8% liked)

Science Memes

11416 readers
2250 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS