664
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
664 points (69.5% liked)
Memes
45902 readers
2530 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm pro nuke energy but to pretend there are no downsides is what got us into the climate mess we are in in the first place.
Cost, being a major drawback, space being another. And of course while they almost never fail, they do occasionally, and will again. And those failures are utterly catastrophic, and it'd hard to convince a community to welcome a nuclear plant, and if the community doesn't want it then it can't or shouldn't be forced onto them.
They also represent tactical strike sites in time of combat engagement. Big red X for a missile.
There are also significant environmental concerns, as we really have no good way to dispose of nuclear waste in a safe or efficient manner at this time.
It's likely that nuclear based energy is the future, but you need to discuss the bad with the good here or we are just going to end up at square one again. There are long term ramifications.
Worth noting that all modern failures have been GE models or ancient Westinghouse models. Modern nuclear reactors built by Westinghouse are virtually immune from meltdown, and Westinghouse is the lead player in new builds. Nuclear safety has come miles since the like of Fukushima, and especially 3 Mile Island. I'd feel perfectly safe living near a new Westinghouse nuclear plant.
I'd rather a nuclear plant as my neighbor rather than a coal or natural gas one.
One has a one in a million chance to kill you. The other has a 100 in 100 chance to cause you severe health issues in the longrun.
Those health issues while being a problem are in no danger of killing humanity. Wether they affect hundreds, thousands, even millions.
ONE really bad nuclear disaster can make a whole continent uninhabitable.
The risks are on totally different magnitudes.
There's always a way to fail. Always.
There are no unsinkable ships. No matter how safe the Titanic is, keep enough of them on the sea and one will eventually sink the way least people expected. If life on Earth depends on a Titanic never sinking...we're fucked eventually.
Life on Earth depends on no more than a couple on nuclear plants blowing up catastrophically.
Wdym space with nuclear energy?
Nuke energy! Actually, don't. We need it.
Practice shows that in land wars instead of big X it is just burden for both sides. I'm talking Putin-Ukraine war.
That's a single single war, and not indicative, power supply remains and always has been a high priority target.
Just cause putin and Kiev avoid chernobyl isn't really evidence to the contrary
I'm not denying this. But mostly power distribution instead of power generation was targeted.
I agree with everything you say. It really is spot on. What I don't understand is how, with your awareness, do you still consider yourself pro-nuclear. Honest question, I really am curious.
This is a shocker for many on social media but you can accept that something you want is not perfect but still want it, or see good in a bad person, but still not want them on the throne.
Just because I can be realistic about it's pros and cons instead of blindly parroting that I have been told to parrot doesn't mean I can't be pro nuclear.
Other power sources have more problems. And I say just launch the waste into space and eventually the reactors will just be out of the stratosphere and it won't matter if it explodes.
But you got to walk before you can run.
I just dislike when people pretend there are no downside to nuke, EV, wind, etc, because if they make one little comment on a con suddenly they're some anti enviro Trump sucker and get dogpiled
There's a difference in something being not perfect and being fundamentally flawed. My confusion is because you perfectly verbalized why I think it's flawed.
I could understand being in favor of using nuclear temporarily until renewables are more reliable. I don't agree but I understand the thought process. It's a calculated risk, an acceptable gamble. But being aware of all the issues with nuclear and still be in favor of it long term, in my opinion, doesn't make sense.
Mind you, I'm not trying to attack you, I'm genuinely intrigued and curious.
I dunno what that guy was thinking, but it seems obvious to me that nuclear fusion is the long term solution for energy generation.
Nuclear fission not so much, but it's definitely debatable which has more fundamental flaws between fission and wind/hydro/solar. All renewable energy sources ultimately depend on natural processes which are not reliable or permanent. And they also tend to disrupt the environment to some extent.
Nuclear fission has no such limitations, but instead trades long term risk for short term stability. Basically renewable sources are and always will be somewhat unreliable, and Nuclear fission is the least bad reliable energy source to pair with the renewables. So in the medium term, fission makes a lot more sense than fossil fuels, and in the long term we should be looking to fusion.
This immediately discards like, everything you've said up until now, though. It matters if it explodes on the way up challenger style and irradiates half of the continent with a massive dirty bomb of nuclear waste. It's way more cost effective, efficient, and safer to just put it somewhere behind a big concrete block and then pay some guy to watch it 24/7, and make sure the big concrete block doesn't crack open or suffer from water infiltration or whatever.
If a single point of obvious facetiousness or a single point that you dislike discredited my entire comment for you, then you're just a bot.
Come on. Flex that brain. You can do it.
I mean to be fair you do make it pretty easy to discredit your entire argument, when you're just gonna say that anyone calling you out on this very obviously stupid idea is a bot. Like that's the same thing again.
Maybe I'm a victim of Poe's law, but I've seen "launch nuclear waste into space" get way more repute than it deserves as an idea from people who have no clue about the actual issues with, even just normal aspects to do with energy generation. It's a shorthand signal that lets me know that someone's had all their thinking on it done for them by shitty pop science and shitty science journalism. It's like if someone believes in antivax, or something. I'm probably not going to really think they're a credible source, after that. This is also bad if the shit they're saying is itself lacking in external sources which I can rely on outside of them.
I'm also flexing my brain right now because none of the shit you said at all really backs up the idea the nuclear energy is the future. Like, if you think it's inevitable that more plants collapse and it's inevitable that nuclear power plants get destroyed by missiles in times of war (also a great idea, on par with disposing of it in space, let me irradiate the exact area I'm trying to capture for miles and miles around), then you wouldn't want nuclear power. If you believe in that and then you also believe in the overblown problem of nuclear waste, then there's not really a point, there's no point at which the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
The reason people aren't going to accept nuclear if they believe it has cons is because like half of those cons are, albeit overblown, catastrophic for life on the planet, and the other half are failures to conceptualize based on economic boogeymen, just the same as with solar power. Political will problems, rather than problems with physical reality or core technologies. But still, problems that conflict with the existence of the idea itself.
You're not going to convince people to go in on nuclear power, your stated idea, if you only point out it's flaws, and then also post ridiculous shit.
Man I'm not reading that whole chat gpt wall of text
checks out
Yes. Clearly I'm totally illiterate.
Moron