21
submitted 6 hours ago by Dot@feddit.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 75 points 6 hours ago

a dying and dangerous 20th century technology

I stopped reading there, nuclear is statistically the safest form of energy generation.

[-] jungle@lemmy.world 14 points 4 hours ago

And it tries to paint it as bad for the environment in this paragraph:

But the mining, milling, and production of nuclear fuel, as well as the construction and decommissioning of nuclear plants, emit greenhouse gases at levels ranging from 10 to 130 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour of power — lower than fossil fuels but higher than wind and hydroelectricity (and roughly on par with solar).

So... It's good then?

[-] nef@slrpnk.net 17 points 5 hours ago

To be fair, it does have the most potential to cause harm if you exclude every kind of fossil fuel. And hydroelectric. That said, there isn't a chance in hell I'm going to protest fission if the only alternative is more coal/gas.

[-] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 21 points 5 hours ago

And yet by KWH produced it's the safest by a large margin (safer than solar and wind), and that includes Chernobyl happening, arguably pretty close to "worst case".

Potential is meaningless. Real-world experience has demonstrated it.

[-] tb_@lemmy.world 20 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Nuclear's problem is that, when an issue happens, it is so very visible.

The millions of people dying every year to air pollution are far more spread out, so who cares?

You're more likely to crash in a car, yet people are (generally) far more scared of planes.

[-] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 7 points 3 hours ago

Its invisible like tuberculosis deaths. 4000 a day yet nobody cares cos its poor people that are not politicaly usefull dying.

[-] windowsphoneguy@feddit.org 2 points 5 hours ago

Yeah, all those exploding solar panels are a real danger!

[-] tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 35 minutes ago

Mounting solar panels on roofs - like all roof work - is dangerous.

[-] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 15 points 5 hours ago

Take a look at some stats sometime, nothing comes even close to nuclear safety by KWH produced.

There's far more involved in solar than just solar panels.

[-] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu -2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

And energy dense too!
It also requires a literal village to run and maintain.
And that's the problem, I don't want to see a nuclear power plant managed by fucking Amazon or Google.

[-] funtrek@discuss.tchncs.de -4 points 4 hours ago

Sure, and the next several thousands generations will also have a lot of fun with the waste we produced for just 2-3 generations.

[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

We can reprocess, it's just cheaper to jam in it a hole and solve the problem once and for all:

[-] funtrek@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 3 hours ago

No, there’s no method that eliminates all of the nuclear waste. I know that this myth is very much liked in the nuclear community.

[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Great, is there a method that eliminates all byproducts of fossil fuels?

It reduces them dramatically, to something we can easily deal with, that's huge.

[-] funtrek@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 hours ago

No need for. Solar panels and batteries are at an historically low price and will even become more affordable. There’s simply no economical justification for nuclear energy.

[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 1 points 19 minutes ago* (last edited 18 minutes ago)

Firstly, we'll get there in time.

Secondly, having baseload vastly reduces the amount of batteries needed, and overall is helpful, and nuclear is one of the best baseloads there is.

By any logic we should work on fusion research because it's the actual solution, but the enemy isn't nuclear or renewables, it's fossil fuels, they must be killed as brutally as possible, not just for their ecological impact, but also for their political impact, which may be the most toxic of all.

Imagine the politics of this country if Texas wasn't "Saudi Oil Money" rich and didn't try to screw over our politics on a constant basis. They're the reason we don't have nuclear already, they'd much rather keep everyone on the dinosaur habit than let us move forward an inch.

[-] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 hours ago

No need for. Solar panels and batteries are at an historically low price and will even become more affordable. There’s simply no economical justification for nuclear energy.

How many solar panels and batteries are needed to power every electrical grid on the planet?

Where do we locate all of the panels and batteries?

Where do we get all of the materials for all of the panels and batteries?

What is the total cost to operate and maintain that global power grid?

What is the lifespan of the grid?

What happens to all of the panels and batteries at end of life, and how much does it cost?

this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
21 points (62.1% liked)

Technology

58706 readers
3997 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS