It has the least amount of deaths of ANY energy source we have per amount of power generated. That is if we assume the maximum amount of deaths from the nuclear accidents etc., if we assume more reasonable numbers there is no debate at all. And that comes on top of the extremely low CO2 emissions.
I always wondered if it wasn’t the Kremlin who pushed those anti nuclear agendas (I grew up in Sweden and eventually the “greens” wanted to dismantle nit only the nuclear power plants but also the army). They are never based in facts, only fear, and they helped Russia a lot with not only gas&oil exports but a lot of soft power coming with them.
It is the opposite. Nuclear shills don’t base their opinion on facts, they would rather hope for a miracle solution that is, when viewed rationally, complete nonsense. Apart from the extremely toxic waste for which we have not found geological structures stable enough to prevent it from leaking, building nuclear power plants is a really CO2-intensive process, especially with regard to all the concrete involved. The most pressing issue, however, is the fuel. What do you think nuclear reactors generate power with? Lots of air and goodwill? Entire regions have to be dug up for Uranium, of which useful isotopes then have to be enriched before they can be used economically in reactors. Furthermore, uranium is even less abundant in the Earth than oil and natural gas. If we would adopt nuclear power generation at large scale world-wide, we would deplete our scarce uranium probably in a few decades, long before oil. So we’re just substituting one problem for another with nuclear energy. It isn’t sustainable and renewable because at some point shortly after adoption, the fuel would run out.
What a trainwreck your post is, you’re saying CO2 costs for building a nuclear plant outweighs the CO2 fossil fuels would generate for the same amount if energy created, it’s like thinking you can bicycle to the moon.
Thats total and utter bs. The cost of nuclear is insanely high, especially for storing. On top comes the “not in my backyard” situation which makes the most vulnerable people be the ones most affected. We are seeing days on 100% renewables. Its not that hard to understand.
What is BS? I never said anything about monetary cost. CO2 will cost SO absurdly much more than anything nuclear combined, I find it hard to care about it.
Pushing nuclear is bs. The nuclear lobby wants to make it look like there is only coal or nuclear. Reality is renewables are the only solution. Dont believe shit like this.
You said “it’s much safer” in your original comment, which you removed in the edit.
The source you’ve linked shows it’s marginally safer on a death per KW/h rate, true, while being substantially more expensive and comes with the unsolved problem of dealing with toxic waste.
It’s 25% safer, which is closer to “much” safer than “marginally” safer in my mind, but yes I decided it’s better to let the data speak for itself and avoid such subjective qualifiers.
It is more expensive, which is why I prefer wind and solar to nuclear, but we were talking about safety specifically, not which tech is “better overall”.
How many cubic feet of nuclear waste do you think there is? I’m curious. Cause currently, all of the waste America has EVER created, would fill 1 football field about 30 feet high.
But a couple of hundred thousand displaced people don’t count, of course. Also, there are no reliable statistics on fatalities because these are being systematically suppressed. I wonder why that is?
Pretty sure I saw news of the UK having 100% renewable energy days, and like a dozen US states believe it’s practical enough to have a roadmap …… and those aren’t the states with the highest wind potential
Edit …. And there’s California with 100 100% renewable energy days out of 144 analyzed
US is much more favorable for renewable energy than Germany, lots more wind, solar and hydro potential. How can we not be doing at least as well. There’s no technical reason. No practical reason. No economic reason. Just a bunch of gullible people manipulated by fossil fuel companies, a bunch of gullible people manipulated by outrage media, a bunch of gullible people manipulated by politicians. Idiots. All of them. Or evil
Yeah, I wasn’t trying to knock Germany. I’m German. But it’s far from 100%, we still have lot of coal (even worse, lignite) plants … and building more gas power plants. It’s just not an example if a 100% renewable country. Iceland was (but that got me downvoted, lol).
Anyway, it’s just lemmy. At least the debating about nuclear power doesn’t get you banned :S
As a resident of a US state with very little potential for renewable energy, we’ve been trying. Solar is gangbusters, but a few idiots keep blocking offshore wind and we’re at the mercy of other states for blocking us from building transmission lines to get some of that sweet Canadian hydro (probably just as well, given our current idiotic federal govt)
Yeah. I’m not gonna bother discussing this with you. Please start reading at get off of telegram and 4chan. I suggest wikipedia or other “mainstream” sources of information. Good bye
Fukushima was supposed to be better. It wasn’t. They weren’t an abandoned Soviet reactor, they were efficient, well-trained Japanese. 3 mile island was America. It can happen anywhere.
Don’t compare nuclear to coal. Nobody’s making new coal plants, and they sure wouldn’t have been replaced by a far more expensive nuclear plant.
You are against renewables. In the time it takes to design, build, and start operation of a nuclear plant, you could have made an entire factory to produce wind turbines or photovoltaics, and have been making product for years before the nuclear plant even opens. If they open, because most nuclear reactors don’t go online due to cost overruns, time overruns, construction problems, etc… Then they just sit there, a big concrete foundation making zero energy.
Your thinking is out of the 1970’s-80’s. Completely outdated by at least 50 years.
Nice try, nuclear lobby. We still dont want your dirty tech instead of 100% renewables.
It has the least amount of deaths of ANY energy source we have per amount of power generated. That is if we assume the maximum amount of deaths from the nuclear accidents etc., if we assume more reasonable numbers there is no debate at all. And that comes on top of the extremely low CO2 emissions.
I always wondered if it wasn’t the Kremlin who pushed those anti nuclear agendas (I grew up in Sweden and eventually the “greens” wanted to dismantle nit only the nuclear power plants but also the army). They are never based in facts, only fear, and they helped Russia a lot with not only gas&oil exports but a lot of soft power coming with them.
/Thank you for coming to my conspiracy talk!
It is the opposite. Nuclear shills don’t base their opinion on facts, they would rather hope for a miracle solution that is, when viewed rationally, complete nonsense. Apart from the extremely toxic waste for which we have not found geological structures stable enough to prevent it from leaking, building nuclear power plants is a really CO2-intensive process, especially with regard to all the concrete involved. The most pressing issue, however, is the fuel. What do you think nuclear reactors generate power with? Lots of air and goodwill? Entire regions have to be dug up for Uranium, of which useful isotopes then have to be enriched before they can be used economically in reactors. Furthermore, uranium is even less abundant in the Earth than oil and natural gas. If we would adopt nuclear power generation at large scale world-wide, we would deplete our scarce uranium probably in a few decades, long before oil. So we’re just substituting one problem for another with nuclear energy. It isn’t sustainable and renewable because at some point shortly after adoption, the fuel would run out.
Lol found the gas&oil shill!
What a trainwreck your post is, you’re saying CO2 costs for building a nuclear plant outweighs the CO2 fossil fuels would generate for the same amount if energy created, it’s like thinking you can bicycle to the moon.
Thats total and utter bs. The cost of nuclear is insanely high, especially for storing. On top comes the “not in my backyard” situation which makes the most vulnerable people be the ones most affected. We are seeing days on 100% renewables. Its not that hard to understand.
What is BS? I never said anything about monetary cost. CO2 will cost SO absurdly much more than anything nuclear combined, I find it hard to care about it.
Pushing nuclear is bs. The nuclear lobby wants to make it look like there is only coal or nuclear. Reality is renewables are the only solution. Dont believe shit like this.
You’re saying nuclear power is responsible for less deaths and sicknesses than for example… wind?
Yes. Wind turbines maintenance is a dangerous job that sometimes results in injury or death. Nuclear power is safer, per kWh.
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
It’s not, a person has already provided a study proving you wrong.
Edit: You’ve changed your comment completely with that edit.
I provided a source, you said “it’s not”. Forgive me if I ignore your comment unless you also provide a source.
You said “it’s much safer” in your original comment, which you removed in the edit.
The source you’ve linked shows it’s marginally safer on a death per KW/h rate, true, while being substantially more expensive and comes with the unsolved problem of dealing with toxic waste.
It’s 25% safer, which is closer to “much” safer than “marginally” safer in my mind, but yes I decided it’s better to let the data speak for itself and avoid such subjective qualifiers.
It is more expensive, which is why I prefer wind and solar to nuclear, but we were talking about safety specifically, not which tech is “better overall”.
How many cubic feet of nuclear waste do you think there is? I’m curious. Cause currently, all of the waste America has EVER created, would fill 1 football field about 30 feet high.
It’s only doing slights better than wind.
Right so why shouldn’t we just use power sources where we don’t have an issue with massively toxic waste products later on in the process?
Edit: And which are also a lot cheaper.
Because of reliability and lack of storage options.
Pumped hydroelectric storage exists and is easily achieved. What about the storage options for nuclear waste?
Only if you have a mountain nearby, which not all places have.
We have those.
Not really, you can build hydroelectric storage facilities.
The nuclear storage facilities here in Germany are already being shut down because they’re in danger of leaking into the groundwater.
Haven’t you heard of all the people that get killed by feral solar panels every year?
But a couple of hundred thousand displaced people don’t count, of course. Also, there are no reliable statistics on fatalities because these are being systematically suppressed. I wonder why that is?
Nice try petroleum and coal lobby, maybe try harder with the “clean coal” next time!
Are you drunk? Countries are already having 100% renewable usage days.
Yeah, tiny countries with very favourable conditions like Iceland.
Pretty sure I saw news of the UK having 100% renewable energy days, and like a dozen US states believe it’s practical enough to have a roadmap …… and those aren’t the states with the highest wind potential
Edit …. And there’s California with 100 100% renewable energy days out of 144 analyzed
We have a disinformation campaign running in here. Dont get discouraged. Something really crazy is going on in this place.
Yeah, right. And the very favorable germany. Please get help.
If you think Germany is running on 100% renewables, you need help way more than I do.
59% over the entire year is a damn good start
US is much more favorable for renewable energy than Germany, lots more wind, solar and hydro potential. How can we not be doing at least as well. There’s no technical reason. No practical reason. No economic reason. Just a bunch of gullible people manipulated by fossil fuel companies, a bunch of gullible people manipulated by outrage media, a bunch of gullible people manipulated by politicians. Idiots. All of them. Or evil
Yeah, I wasn’t trying to knock Germany. I’m German. But it’s far from 100%, we still have lot of coal (even worse, lignite) plants … and building more gas power plants. It’s just not an example if a 100% renewable country. Iceland was (but that got me downvoted, lol).
Anyway, it’s just lemmy. At least the debating about nuclear power doesn’t get you banned :S
As a resident of a US state with very little potential for renewable energy, we’ve been trying. Solar is gangbusters, but a few idiots keep blocking offshore wind and we’re at the mercy of other states for blocking us from building transmission lines to get some of that sweet Canadian hydro (probably just as well, given our current idiotic federal govt)
Yeah. I’m not gonna bother discussing this with you. Please start reading at get off of telegram and 4chan. I suggest wikipedia or other “mainstream” sources of information. Good bye
You should take your own advice. It’s a pretty simple thing to look up.
deleted by creator
Fukushima was supposed to be better. It wasn’t. They weren’t an abandoned Soviet reactor, they were efficient, well-trained Japanese. 3 mile island was America. It can happen anywhere.
Don’t compare nuclear to coal. Nobody’s making new coal plants, and they sure wouldn’t have been replaced by a far more expensive nuclear plant.
You are against renewables. In the time it takes to design, build, and start operation of a nuclear plant, you could have made an entire factory to produce wind turbines or photovoltaics, and have been making product for years before the nuclear plant even opens. If they open, because most nuclear reactors don’t go online due to cost overruns, time overruns, construction problems, etc… Then they just sit there, a big concrete foundation making zero energy.
Your thinking is out of the 1970’s-80’s. Completely outdated by at least 50 years.
Fukushima shouldn’t have been built that close to a fault line and the ocean.
China is building coal plants
deleted by creator
Yes daddy fill me with sweet coal, gas and lithium 🥵
The matrix happened because the machines used renewables thus the enemy eternally destroyed the atmosphere.
If the machines used nuclear energy they would have won.
God bless all intelligent forms