Butwaitheresmoreforonlyninenintynine
205854
4759
137
Tl;dr Nuclear energy isn't as bad as you think.
Edit: Hey cool! Thanks for having an interest in nuclear power. Mind you this is not undeniable facts but one person's thoughts on it. Please check out: freesciencelessons on YouTube for more in depth information.
https://youtu.be/ar3-Ps04AJI
@pointybracket7717 also noted a documentary called Pandora's Promise. I haven't seen it but you should check it out!
Also if you'd like to check out my Kickstarter for my dungeons and dragons module you can find it here:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/nerddadmaps/rabbits-in-the-high-forest
It's based on Alice in wonderland and we're about 50% funded! Thank you guys for putting up with me promoting my work.
braaaiiiiinnnnsss
This post brought to you by the Nuclear Power Industry.
kradidark
A lot of Nuclear power relies on Rivers for Cooling, With draughts and floods becoming a lot more likely they aren't as reliable as thhought
kingbudo101
Nebel01
that not true,we need to remember nuclear power is dangerous, and that why we need all that extra precaution, but we kow how to deal with it
Ultin8
It says only 2 accidents- is that ever, or in one country or what? I can name Chernobyl, 3 mile island, Sellafield as non-tsunami incidents
newsguycraigevans
They down played the accidents like they were no big deal in order to sell nuclear, they're trying to rebrand like Facebook
Talligan
The waste doesn't take hundreds of years to dissipate. It takes 1 million years to return to background radiation levels.
tankerofquetzals
*Everything* causes environmental damage. We want to minimise it. It's a matter of trade-offs, there's no perfection right now.
AnonOmis1000
Wheres that comic about energy output of different file sources and if says "log graphs are fir quitters"
RummageSaleBubbler
Inlining. Thx to @MyLastAccountWasShadowbanned for finding. XKCD is licensed as CC-by-NC; so just upload.
jridley
Coal plants put out way more radiation as normal course of doing business than all the nuclear accidents ever.
FiftyShadesOfCauliflower
And the sun is a nuclear disaster waiting to happen. One massive solar flare...
porcubot
Diversify your energy sector, my guys. This isn't rocket surgery.
yellowtoolboxblackbag
This is what I've been barking about for quite a while- Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, etc. Don't be overly reliant on any one.
MrFancyPanzer
People bring up Chernobyl a lot but hydro power has probably killed more people than any form of nuclear power, including bombs.
whatsisname
Quite possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
MrFancyPanzer
Coal plants kill more people annually than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, they also release tonns of radiation.
LostSiabrae
For those interested: the youtube channel Kurzgesagt has some extremely well researched and well put together videos on nuclear power.
PotatoSpacer
.
Lovemorhatem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcOFV4y5z8c
ttownep
My 6-yr old has gone down the rabbit hole on these videos. Good stuff.
LtPrinny
Their videos are in general very well put together! Big recommendation from here as well.
Guilgamesh
I always upvote a comment that mention kurzgesagt
angrytaco
But windmill cancer!
AdrianDunne
TheDudeanator
Politicians don't go for nuclear power because it takes more than 4 years to build a plant, and they might not be in office to take credit
UserSubImgurian
There is too much red tape. Place in TX applied for new construction license. Gave up after several years of red tape and an alphabet soup/1
UserSubImgurian
Inspector/ regulator said point blank "I'm going to do everything I can to hold up your license." /2
TheDudeanator
by the time it is completed.
rudejohn
How does that explain why it's been losing popularity in many countries without 4-year term limits?
tankerofquetzals
Bad reputation way out of kilter with actual damage, which other energies with far worse damage don't have. Ironic that the Greens ended
tankerofquetzals
up with a huge moral responsibility for climate change.
rudejohn
Yes - your reason is much closer to reality than just "zomg politicians don't get credit".
globe243
Idc about explosion, what about storing the end products? Many countries have set 1 Mio years as the time frame save storage must be 1/2
globe243
Guaranteed. How can we as humans with 80 years lifetime want to guarantee this? Also thinking that 1 generations energy is 70000 2/x
globe243
Generations waste to monitor ist kinda absurd tbh. Why doing all this if we can just use sun and wind, water etc. 3/3
Zap117
I recommend watching Pandoras promise. Really good deal documentary on nuclear energy.
benreilly10
A combination of nuclear, solar, wind and hydro will be vital to staving off the worst effects of climate change. This is a must
DocNitro
Plastering every angled roof in solar can help a ton, especially when countries are not idiotic and force you to buy grid power, while
DocNitro
selling your solar power to others.
benreilly10
It is genuinely shocking how rigged our power markets are; like a lot of the market pressure against solar is just invented by BS rules
DocNitro
And it is even funnier when the eco lobby is lobbying against conventional powerplants (fossil, nuclear), and they then also lobby against
DocNitro
turbines (bird/insect shredders, infrasound, shade thrown), hydroelectric, or the powerlines needed to transfer offshore turbine power.
almightydonkeypunch
Technically, solar energy IS nuclear energy.
Brominn
? The sun is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace ?
FoxGodRecords
Where hydrogen is built into helium at a temperature of millions of degrees.
xmaneds
fusion vs. fission but yeah whatever
Yacobs21
Fusion reactors are being worked on currently, and it's mostly held back by demonizing nuclear
xmaneds
"sustainable fusion reactors are only 10 years away ! ! ! "
FoxGodRecords
"It's fusion reactor week at the White House."
warriorofdiscord
Eh, not precisely. There's still, from my understanding, major scientific advancements that need to be made in order to reach that.
Truckfromthewoods
You should check out all the private investments into fusion right now. I honestly think we’re close to net gain with supercomputing ..
Truckfromthewoods
Modernized lasers and more efficient magnets. I nerd out reading about how many companies are racing to finish this.
Yacobs21
That's... what worked on means
AnotherStupidHipster
I want to be blue, or red, in any of my daily conversations. Those are some stand-up examples of polite internet users.
NunyaBNess1
Blue seems scripted, both with his prompt and rebuttals. I had similar scripts to sell credit cards when I worked in a call center.
AnotherStupidHipster
It's pretty relatable. I've definitely put together a "sales pitch" for things I believe in before. But I also have background in sales lol
JesaraB
We have had Far more than 2 accidents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country#United_States
woobniggurath
This doesn't even, I think, account for waste-containment failures.
goldenflax
Just this year, didn't Japan approve dumping more radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean again? From Fukushima, still?!
chimera388
Did you know the ocean is naturally radioactive?
goldenflax
Fukushima dumping over a million TONS of contaminated water into the ocean is "naturally" radioactive?
chimera388
No I'm saying it was radioactive before humans built any power plants.
JesaraB
Not saying radiation is inherently Bad, but claiming that these accidents haven't happened? 3-mile-island anyone?
JesaraB
Oh, better link (scale mentioned elsewhere) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale anything with a 4+ is a big deal
kidberlin
There is not a single longterm nuclear waste repository on this whole god forsaken planet.... smh
evd2
correct, most waste is stored on the sites of the plant.
ace5762
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
HereticNoNumber
Onkalo is almost ready to be used but it is not in use yet. The plan is to deposit first nuclear waste batch in year 2025.
Sapotaattori
I assume they are being built at the moment like Onkalo in finland.
woobniggurath
There is -no such thing- as a long term secure storage site when you take into account half-lives of 20 -30 THOUSAND YEARS.
rando84
WIPP in New Mexico.
Potts
We could put the nuclear waste in the old coal mines
kidberlin
yes, thats literally mankinds solution: throw it in the dirt pit and forget about it.
CakeShapedPie
Or put it back in the hole it was mined from. The one that was already radioactive naturally.
Thneitis
I mean….. yes? That’s where it came from. We also have A LOT of dirt. Like….. a lot
IAmDrBanner
I mean, with the current technology the vast majority of this was is already recyclable. And the trend is for the technology /1
IAmDrBanner
to become even more efficient waste-wise. It is not like Coal, Wind and Solar don't have their own kind of byproduct that we just /2
IAmDrBanner
dump into trash-islands out in the ocean anyway. /3
Rehjee
I mean.... We kind of live on a dirt pit. Where else are we going to put it, if next door is literally our everywhere and only choice?
ImStillFlying
I see where you’re coming from, but it’s not entirely true that we’d just forget about it. Folk have done some pretty interesting thought
ImStillFlying
Experiments on long term nuclear waste warnings. https://phys.org/news/2019-09-nuclear.html that’s just one of several articles I could link
Auxilium
Greens have got more votes in Germany despite causing significant increase in power cost by pushing closure of Nuclear
TacticalChungus
I guess they all took that show Dark quite seriously, huh.
Auxilium
which thus worsened environmental impact that cause recent flooding right before elections
Auxilium
/ because coal ended up picking up the demand for energy
kashflow
Same thing happened in California.
Auxilium
And now we've got more expensive gas, which is widely used for heating, because energy is not viable due to cost
RummageSaleBubbler
Nuclear engineer here: Fuck coal. Most coal deaths are due to its air pollution, not the obvious death of miners.
oggyswe
Nuclear engineer? Keep that up dude. We need more of you.
Ark161
I burned out my ambition to go into NucEng due to the world screaming NUCLEAR BAD. one of my biggest regrets.
WatcherNotCreeper
I take it you agree with the sentiments? I do and now I like the argument about panels using resources to create, etc...
Yacobs21
Coal is the WORST we had literal decades of paintings, music, and film about how much it sucks to be a miner and it's lingers 'cause subsidy
Dissipo
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2021-07-08/nuclear-energy-will-not-be-solution-climate-change
Mediocreclient
something is, quite literally, better than nothing, and nuclear is the best something. we've been doing a really, really bad job so far.
tavinjer
I lived in a city in China where due to human and geographic conditions you could very literally see the pollution in the air. It’s horrid.
Justtakealookatthis
Go anywhere w/ a large river and tons of traffic. Stand on a bridge, preferably above the traffic on the shore. If the light hits right 1
Justtakealookatthis
2 you'll see the pollution settled above the city like a kind of dirty fog.
Isosyn
I visited Guangzhou for a week. I could barely tell where the sun was behind the smog at noon during the summer.
ElChupaNuggra
Legitimate question, I seen the full doc on Thorium Reactors being the future, being far more abundant in material than Plutonium or 1/?
ElChupaNuggra
Uranium, virtually no risk/impossible to result in explosions, halflife and waste is a fraction of it's more dangerous forebears, but it 2/?
ElChupaNuggra
got fucked over cause the others could make bombs. Is there a future in Thorium? Or was the Doc glossing over other important details 3/?
ElChupaNuggra
other than Reactor Tech for Thorium being so far behind that it's still a good 20 years off? 4/4
HypersonicHero
My problem is even if a nuclear meltdown is a once in a lifetime event, if humanity is going to survive another 200,000 years that is far
HypersonicHero
Too many accidents.
Remmon1
Nuclear fission is a short term solution, just like solar and wind. The long term solution is nuclear fusion.
HypersonicHero
Nice sentiment but technically solar is fusion with more steps ;)
Remmon1
The extra steps currently involving a ton of toxic chemicals being dumped into the water and soil around factories and mines.
DarkRedCape
*raises hand to ask a question* What exactly does a nuclear engineer do?
notsureofanything
Depends. R&D, reactor design, fuel assembly, fuel design, reactor engineer are a few. It’s a vague question
ArandomDane
Most monitor nuclear facility operations. Aka what Homer Simpson should be doing.
Argondey
saganation
According to my buddy who is a MM2 on a nuclear boat? Glorified plumbing.
PhantomPanis
Navy nukes are not nuclear engineers, anyone who claims otherwise is being douchey. Source: former Sub ET1
saganation
Ah yeah you're right. My apologies.
RummageSaleBubbler
In a nuclear power plant? Keeps the right amount of neutrons moving at the right speeds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_factor_formula
HenryLongfellowIII
Coal waste is more radioactive than nuclear waste.
JustAnotherRandomCommenter
plus, with coal, we throw a bunch of that waste directly into the air! great!
thelilbirdy
And into the ground smh
pattyofurniture400
*releases more radioactivity into the air than nuclear does.
Mediocreclient
so, it's.... wait, let me do some quick math here... more... radioactive?
AyrA
Coal itself is not radiactive but has nuclear material enclosed within. Burning the coal releases these materials into the air.
AyrA
It's not a lot but adds up when you burn coal at an industrial scale 24/7
deject3000
No, nuclear waste itself is far more radioactive. Difference is that we don’t spew nuclear waste out into the environment, we contain it.
EricPisch
Until something goes wrong
crateo
He probably meant "polluting". Coal doesn't become radioactive.
RummageSaleBubbler
Nuance applies to the statement. Coal is plenty radioactive, and burnt in large enough quantity that its radioactivity is substantial.
dannnen1
Chernobyl was manned by idiots during the meltdown
prichp
The staff was pressured into bypassing safety procedures.
woobniggurath
Oh I'm sure THAT will never happen again.
MahadmaGaudi
And this is of course something that can never happen again
dakkaffex
Even if it does happen again the results will be magnitude lower than fossils. Friendly reminder that fossil fuel result in
dakkaffex
million of death per year
IAmDrBanner
That is why multi-layered and automated safety protocols exist.
breothskin
Which will invariably include an override of some kind, built by the lowest bidder, that someone will inevitably use because… time=money
Butwaitheresmoreforonlyninenintynine
I don't think sarcasm travels well over the internet. But I get that you're joking! Upvote for you!
MahadmaGaudi
Prowler2142
It was managed by idiots who didnt know the design could do that because the KGB censored docs that showed it could. It was also designed 1
Prowler2142
to operate as cheaply as possible, which meant it needed to run on a void coefficient standard that no other nation found acceptable. 2/end
Yuktio
How many workers do you think died in factories during the Industrial Revolution, due to loose regulations, corner-cutting methods and a
Yuktio
general lack of care/understanding about health and safety? THAT can also happen again, but in most developed countries it doesn't because
Yuktio
those problems were addressed and rectified.
whatsisname
Though the GQP sure seems to want to bring those 'glory' days back.
Dasnekones
My main argument against nuclear is that it takes a decade to build and we need a solution 20 years ago. Too late in the disaster.
rando84
France decarbonized its power sector in 15 years with nuclear. Germany has spent more than any country on renewables and it won’t even be (1
rando84
able to phase out coal by 2030 without building a massive nature gas pipeline from Russia. (2
Dasnekones
Changes nothing i said. Choosing nuclear is resigning yourself to a decade of not fighting the disaster. Renewables might be more...
Dasnekones
Expensive or even harder to build but it is something we can see the results in much faster. We don't have the time to do things slowly now.
rando84
Who thinks we can get anywhere near 100% renewables in 10 years? Germany has dumped more money than anyone into it and they understand (1
tankerofquetzals
New plants take 5 years to build, from order to completion, IIRC.
Dasnekones
I admit i have not looked into this too deeply but when i checked it took around 5 years for planning and license approval and 5-7 buildtime
tankerofquetzals
That would match - I guess the pre-ordering takes a fair bit of time.
thechelonianshelmet
I'll not argue about nuclear powers improvements, but dismissing solar when it's still improving is as bad as refering to nuclears past.
rando84
I’m pro-nuclear but I’d agree that’s a valid point—I see wind/solar & nuclear as complementary and welcome advances in both.
thechelonianshelmet
Agreed, they can act as backups to each other, plus excess energy could be useful in future tech, also advances in 1 may help other one
solarshado
As I understand it, the biggest thing holding back solar at this point isn't so much generation as storage for off-peak production hours.
HereticNoNumber
Yeah this is the big problem. All electricity produced need to be used at the same moment since there is no large scale way to store it.
HereticNoNumber
I am guessing nobody wants that TV to power down on evening when the sun goes down. Solar alone is not the answer.
thechelonianshelmet
That's part of it, as is the waste/recycle issues, the dismissals that're used now by pro-nuclear is akin to what was used against them
Kingdomonsterdeath
Solar is too inconsistent. Requires shit tonnes of room. Plus high capacity batteries that are terrible for the environment. Nuclear>solar
thechelonianshelmet
As I said, based on current tech, what could be improved is unknown, so dismissingb it is as childish as holding onto nuclears past failures
HereticNoNumber
Also childish to lean on future solutions for current problems. We need to solve the energy problem with what we have currently at hand.
avavilina
But we have energy needs to address today. What improvements may happen in the future isn't relevant to that discussion.
thechelonianshelmet
I agree with addressing todays issues, but disregarding solar now is akin to how nuclear was crippled, we should work on both properly
tankerofquetzals
I think everyone would love clean, efficient solar. It's just that right now it's polluting and stop-gap, and we need solutions to climate
tankerofquetzals
change NOW.
Fattbeard
But what about all the gay wind?
honeybadger16
That sulfur mine will eventually peter out
frenofafren
That goes away after a few thrusts.
sightlab
Usually it’s the thrusts that put the wind in there in the first place.
ihateyouallandyouhatemetoo
i care about male frogs too much, dont want them turning gay!
Danielmgur
My neighbors are gay! I put up a wind turbine in my yard to take advantage of all the blowing they do.
sauronater
That must be why the wind lately has been making me tingly all over!! :o
YeetSauce87
*it'll blow Oliver
livinglife9009
Not enough rainbows.
theguyinyournightmares
Light is really a hidden rainbow. Solar is more gay.
AndNowForSomethingCompletelyDifferentdk
I like a little jolly wind.
YeetSauce87
It'll blow over
Butwaitheresmoreforonlyninenintynine
We can have gay radioactive waste. It's like regular water but sparkling.
PaulDam
I'm intrigued
WaterUnderTheRocketAppliances
Eldricht
It's not sparkling water unless it comes from the sparkling region of France. Otherwise it's just spicy rock tea
friendsofsandwiches
SImply put, yalls bitching about 1950s, and 1970s tech. We've KINDa learned a few things since then, and made changes.
dec9675
True but always better to be safe than sorry let's make sure we have it all sorted before we try anything
JohnMike64
Correct unfortunately new nuclear tech hasn't been invested in and used at scale. Governments are still choosing 1970s designs it seems
G0MeatCube
Learning new things, awww jeez next your saying woman will be able to vote and own houses./s
thebigbaka
Don't care don't want to deal with it rather have a windmill in my yard
PacManiacDK
CandidGamera
And once the political debate is about using those changes and not about keeping the 1950-70s tech running, I'll support it.
Bossco20
I recognize that, but I'm still concerned the safe guards put in place can be seen as obstacles for corporate profit in a country ran by
Bossco20
Corporations. We have an insane corporate mindset where the interest of public safety is seen as an infringement for freedom like mask
Bossco20
And vaccine mandates
Articate
Sadly, we’ve forgotten how to build the plants, as basically no new plants have been built for decades.
williamtowel
Not just that if you measure the actual damage cause by all nuclear sources compared to say gas and coal, it's like 1 to 20 with all the-
williamtowel
long term effects of coal/gas in the air and shear amount of damage getting them does to the environment. It's not even close.
AwesomeName
And the progress in solar and wind technology is even more impressive.
Braveemink
I mean, same thing with vaccines really. Everyone that is50 or older needs to die so that progress can be made, i dont mean murdered btw
spookywhispering
I live by an 1960s plant with spent rod storage and they've got caught lying about doing safety checks that they really didn't do so yeah...
plunderachiever365
Fukushima would like a word
friendsofsandwiches
you didn't read the post, did you.
plunderachiever365
Solar power and wind power can never leak radiation, even a 1% chance is too much imo but thats like, your opinion man.
friendsofsandwiches
yes it is. And that opinion is we need to look at ALL aspects of energy generation, and not discount anything due to fears and fear mongerig
plunderachiever365
Let's look at those options then: both nuclear and solar need heavy regulations to make them safe, however when accidents happen in nuclear
zzxcvb
& The Tsumani wasn't localized to the Fukushima. Onagawa was the closest and stopped without issue. The Fukushima Daini (sister plant of/
zzxcvb
Fukushima Daiichi) was functioning again after 48 hours. The Daiichi plant built 1967 failed survived an earth quake, tsumani, and failed /
zzxcvb
because the backup, & backup backup generators were located in a part of the plant that had flooded.
whitebbwolf
No, not REALLY. We know change is POSSIBLE but when was the last time a good new long term technology was implemented to the detriment 1/2
whitebbwolf
of current fat cats and the military industrial complex? 2/2
Quessir
An opposing viewpoint might be that they made the same arguments back then as well. We've learned a lot since a few decades ago, it's safe >
Quessir
clean and reliable power, etc. Not my opinion but I can see it going like that.
Richter12x2
It's better, sure, and it's cleaner, but 1x55 gallon barrel of nuclear waste per person is a lot given the number of people.
JustAnotherRandomCommenter
? thats what it *was* in the 70s - now its much smaller. and will get smaller still over time.
MrFancyPanzer
Plus there is thorium which is much easier to deal with.
Alpha5772
I dunno, Japan had several issues with its plants and Hurricanes. Imagine what could happen with a large earth quake or other act of nature
nebulousned
Have and haven’t. The lack of interest means has meant old tech has been installed while new tech is stuck in development.
asmallcat
But it's also INSANELY expensive to install new nuclear power plants, and they are a bridge technology, so is it worth it?
friendsofsandwiches
main issue is the safety features. once installed, so long as shit isn't trying to actively fuck them up, they can stay good for generations
sdfsfsfsgs
Still though. Current nuclear power is not renewable. It depends on a resource that is depleted overtime and it relatively rare.
sdfsfsfsgs
2) We might find out that the use of this resource is more important to future endeavors instead of supplying our basic electricity needs.
dietluigi
Yeah but we've never fixed the root cause of nearly every nuclear disaster ever- Corner cutting and negligence.
Snarkywisecrack
Do a search for Deaths per Terawatt hour. Nuclear is safer than you think.
dietluigi
I mean, according to the results- Wind, solar, and hydro are less dangerous than nuclear. It's not like I'm advocating for coal here.
theoreocow
just so wrong man
dietluigi
It's what the data literally says.
lysani
Hydro has more, with wind/solar having roughly the same as nuclear, and that's including Fukushima/Chernobyl.
DougDingo
Hydro has killed more than any other form of power by WIDE margins
pariah76
Won't work in the US because we will end up letting corporations run them and they will cut corners for profit
rage3333
You can't. There are regulators that require 100,000 years of safe runtime per accident for nucs. They are already run by corps.
kashflow
We also have a long permit approval on Nuclear facilities tanks to fossil fuel lobbying.
stsword
Yeah, I'm Texan. Abbott would turn Texas into live action Fallout for pocket change if Big Oil would let him.
StarscreamAndHutch
KevorkianScarf
This would be an enjoyable live stream
Snooj
And if China isn't going to properly dispose of the chemicals from solar panels, imagine how they run their nuclear reactors.
Cr4zyC4tLady
That was my exact thought, too.
euphoricopportunity
That's what auditing mechanisms are for. If they're actually independent and adequately funded, they can work.
Taxicat
That’s a big “if” right there…
breothskin
Not when you have regulatory capture by the industry
PubstarHero
Currently not working in China either because one of their reactors keeps leaking and they just change the acceptable level of radiation >
PubstarHero
> leakage so its always in spec. The French company that designed it is trying to back out of there so fast right now.
TheDudzzly
I just wanted to point out that construction was rushed by the Chinese who had 15,000 workers on site 24/7, and finished it 4 years late >
TheDudzzly
> which might sound ridiculous, until you learn that similar projects in France and Finland are even more late... >
Higure
Of the power sources we have, it is definitely the most dangerous if not handled well. But handled well its safety is unparalleled.
PubstarHero
Oh yeah that was more a jab at China than nuclear power
kamosey
Sure, new nuclear is great, but actually planning and building the required amount of plants using finite resources is just not realistic.
somethingcleverlol
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/03/24/is-nuclear-power-a-renewable-or-a-sustainable-energy-source/
Gerokeymaster
You...you saw the part up there where they talked about how it takes roughly an *order of magnitude* more resources to build enough solar /1
Gerokeymaster
panels to get the same amount of energy, right? Not to mention there's all kinds of super hard to mine metals and elements that are /2
Gerokeymaster
needed for both making things like solar panels, and for making batteries to hold excess power from things like solar and wind farms, /3
Gerokeymaster
that can be just as bad, if not worse, for the environment to produce and refine as coal or oil. So while solar, hydro, and wind *are* /4
somethingcleverlol
Honestly its not that big of an issue
fatherted
Look up what goes into building a new plant, time, costs, planning etc. and at how many are needed to offset the climate crisis in time.
williamtowel
You do know other power plants take time , costs, and planning too? and the amount of green energy needed to offset it is like 100 to 1
arthurvanhoudt
Issue is it takes about 10j of work to get a plant operational!! So politics w/ 4-6 years horizons have MAJOR impact.
armagetz
“In time” yep, better to just sit around and wait for grid level storage issues to be fixed. No rush. Oh wait…..
kamosey
We have alternatives. That's the point.
somethingcleverlol
arthurvanhoudt
That’s when they can really start building. But the location choice and planning around that and legalities/permits add at least 3-4years!!
somethingcleverlol
This isn't the 70s or 80s anymore. You can build a plant in a relatively short amount of time
somethingcleverlol
IamNotAshamed
Demonizing nuclear is about as stupid as building more of it. It had it's use. But it's just not scalable to the amounts of energy we need.
BellsTheorem
Some climate change activists are the most vocal about the need for nuclear power.
PhailRaptor
It is, sadly, a microscopic minority
BellsTheorem
It isn't microscopic but also isn't commonly accepted.
Yuktio
The ones who actually care about the issue and look into it, instead of just jumping on the bandwagon and acting like they're invested.
williamtowel
*Raises hand*
oggyswe
I like that in sweden they demonize our storage of the nuclear waste. We place it in the middle of a continental plate a few kilometers 1/2
oggyswe
Down. Nothing short of the end of the world as we know it would cause us to have issues with it. Continental plates dont just break apart2/2
Asadsadsadclown
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
SomeDetroitGuy
We tried to do that and the people living hundreds of km away got their state to block it.
dkanesnark
That makes sense. Both would loose money, so they want to curb nuclear power progress.
Gianttesticlemonster
We had plans for a large plant in Northern Alberta. Suzuki was the person who actually led the campaign that killed it. As a pro nuclear 1/?
Gianttesticlemonster
Power Albertan, its just a circus here. I had someone who works with a pro-nuc lobby group in a masters class and got some wild insights
curtisdelsol
Maybe some of us do not want to allow countries to stockpile more nuclear weapons which these reactors make possible.
IAmDrBanner
Huh? What the fuck are you even talking about. You think that by not allowing nuclear powerplants you are curbing nuclear weapons?
curtisdelsol
Yes, without nuclear reactors there are no nuclear weapons. They are nuclear weapons production facilities.
50m31AW
The most widely used method of enriching uranium for bombs (centrifuge) does not require a nuclear reactor. There're also reactor designs 1/
IAmDrBanner
That is asinine and not at all how it works. Just because it is fissionable doesn't make it a weapon. There is a reason why they give the /1
Asadsadsadclown
Climate change activists are not against nuclear for any reason beyond "spooky rock make mad"
Gianttesticlemonster
In Alberta it was because "if Fukushima happened again everyone in BC will die from a tsunami and radiation poisoning so imagine it here..."
Asadsadsadclown
So yea... 0 reality in that opinion.
Gianttesticlemonster
Yup. But fear mongering and appeal to authority makes for a dangerous combination for rhetoric
Mediocreclient
if Alberta faces a 9.1 magnitude earthquake and the 2nd largest tsunami in history, colour me impressed if it even survives.
Gianttesticlemonster
I'd welcome that at this point
RummageSaleBubbler
Nuclear engineer here: Do you realize how much radiation is put out continuously from a coal plant? (1/2)
edcellente
Thank you! ? (insert appropriate meme gif)
RummageSaleBubbler
Yes, it's a provocative title with nuance. https://scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste (2/2)
Snooj
At first I thought we had about 20 nuclear engineers in the comments.
RummageSaleBubbler
Much like one nuclear plant pulls the weight of many coal plants...
theguywiththevoice
And if corporations will ruin area with radiation using coal, what do you think they'll do with uranium?
Nightcaste
Downtown Paris has a higher background count than most of the CEZ
munkeyninja
Honest question: how safe are the current waste disposal systems andhow well would those systems hold up to societal collapse eg a civil war
whatpassesforclever
Civil war won’t happen. What type of situation are you envisioning? Super villain making a dirty bomb with hijacked nuclear waste?
munkeyninja
nothing specific, just curious about the stability of the system in the event of societal collapse.... also fascism is on the rise in the US
whatpassesforclever
US military leadership made it very clear that they would defend the constitution before listening to a lunatic commander in chief. They 1/
whatpassesforclever
2/ won’t allow an actual war to happen on US soil. The real war is rich Vs poor, and the rich are experts at pitting the poor against each
RummageSaleBubbler
Reprocessing is the better route to reducing waste. Sadly, no disposal today; simply kept on site. Long term storage is plagued with NIMBY.
bloxxing
>waste disposal. wazzat?
nalananda
New reactors can use old “waste”. It’s basically a non issue now
munkeyninja
Asking because you are a nuclear engineer and I’ve heard these concerns raised before
friendofafriendofyourfriend
And because there's a civil war on the horizon
whatpassesforclever
US military would stop it before it started. Not sure why assholes with ARs masquerading as men think they have a chance, but they don’t.
rando84
All nuclear waste in US history could be safely stored in a single underground chamber with the area of a football field. The nature of (1
rando84
half lives means that the hottest/most dangerous high level waste decays quickly (why spent fuel rods are kept in a pool for several years(2
rando84
before being moved to dry cask storage). The hypothetical risk for the long lived waste is that a future human society could dig into the (3
KAPTAINKAMIKAZEE
Alot of it is being buried *deep* underground and far away from water tables so yeah, pretty safe.
[deleted]
[deleted]
beziot
From a french point of view, not that much safe here, so we're looking for new way to store it...
Daealis
Finnish University did the research: Leaking nuclear waste containers buried a mile deep under a city, with no protection. The radiation 1/?
Daealis
from that would slowly creep upwards would reach the topsoil and water within maybe a century, and in the next generation living there 2/?
Daealis
would get more radioactive materials in their bodies by eating two bananas. And nowhere are the materials stored this irresponsibly.
kashflow
Think of it like this. Nuclear waste is the only energy waste that is regulated. 20 years from now all the pv panels will end up as e waste.
breothskin
NRC would do themselves a lot of favors by being a little less obviously captured by industry lobbying.
kashflow
I don't understand what you mean. Could you please elaborate?
breothskin
So the NRC is the nuclear regulatory commission (the US regulator for the civilian nuclear industry) it has a long history of changing rules
whatpassesforclever
Only nuclear waste from nuclear plants is. The 100x as much nuclear waste from coal and oil is, IIRC, expressly *forbidden* to be regulated.
kashflow
Oh cool. Thanks for giving me something to look into when I can't sleep tonight.
whatpassesforclever
Check out molten salt reactors as well, China is about to open the first non-research MSR. They are even safer and more efficient than 1/
breothskin
Regulatory capture is a real and very serious issue in most industries in the US
TorilTheBlacksmithsApprentice
Not a Nuke E,, but I've lived by one of the largest nuclear sites my whole life, am a Civil E, and like going to community science lectures.
TorilTheBlacksmithsApprentice
16 of politicians fighting scientists and engineers, but hopefully this rant explained something. :)
TorilTheBlacksmithsApprentice
9 the engineers a lot of hassle for once, and there was a better site for a repository anyways. WIPP in NM is geologically ideal, bc it has
TorilTheBlacksmithsApprentice
8 primarily abandoned due to political reasons, but the lecturing Nuke E who was a consultant on the project said politics actually saved
TorilTheBlacksmithsApprentice
5 construction a more thorough geological survey revealed a previously undetected fault line that drastically changed the engineering
TorilTheBlacksmithsApprentice
15 repository. So there's research being done about whether each plant could safely store waste by drilling down to bedrock. It's all a mess
TorilTheBlacksmithsApprentice
12 people advanced enough to drill so deep to retrieve it should also have a decent understanding of the dangers of nuclear waste. On the
TorilTheBlacksmithsApprentice
3 but not a great long-term soln or very secure in scenarios involving civil war or societal collapse. The US has tried to build long-term
TorilTheBlacksmithsApprentice
2 Right now, with no national repository, waste from commercial plants stays at that plant in dry cask storage. Pretty safe for short term,
TorilTheBlacksmithsApprentice
6 requirements to keep the waste contained for the necessary amount of time. Even with a ridiculously massive budget proposal to build a
TorilTheBlacksmithsApprentice
11 is also actively compressing, so waste that's buried there becomes inaccessible within a few years. In societal collapse scenarios, any
TorilTheBlacksmithsApprentice
14 have plenty of raw fuel for the time being. Unfortunately, WIPP is also caught up in politics, bc NM doesn't want to be the national
TorilTheBlacksmithsApprentice
4 storage solns but ran into a few issues. Yucca Mtn was going to be the national repository built in an old salt mine, but years into its
TorilTheBlacksmithsApprentice
13 other hand, that also makes it prohibitively expensive for current humans to retrieve if we wanted to reprocess it someday, but we still
TorilTheBlacksmithsApprentice
7 gigantic titanium dome over all the waste, calcs showed that they would still only achieve 10-20% of the necessary lifespan. Yucca Mtn was
TorilTheBlacksmithsApprentice
Clarification: the titanium dome would've been to prevent corrosive water intrusion, but even it would've corroded away too soon.
TorilTheBlacksmithsApprentice
10 no nearby fault lines, traces of water that's been trapped in the rock for over 100,000 years, and no nearby water reservoirs. The rock
TorilTheBlacksmithsApprentice
I think the water may have been trapped for over a million years, but I don't have access to my notes right now.
RummageSaleBubbler
Nuclear engineer here: Coal / oil / natural gas are the enemies here. Solar/wind+storage is a great future.
paperfanman
YES with better storage, wind and solar become excellent options for sustainability
JoOzzmourne
Biom Ass
DocBeeblebrox
Logged in just to upvote this underrated comment
LeSethX
Yup, I always feel like arguing wind/solar vs nuclear energy is a distraction from oil, coal, and the big polluters
RyanAndTheQuestForWorldDomination
I mean it’s a precursor to the whole argument that both are superior to oil coal and gas. Like. That’s the whole linchpin of the argument.
LeSethX
Too often I see it as "what are the alternatives to oil & gas?" and then people pit nuclear vs renewables against each other to avoid change
sdfsfsfsgs
Thank you for this. Nuclear/Solar/Wind should work together, and some cases, even hydro... but hydro often has a larger environmental cost.
Tsamane
What about geothermal?
tiredtiredtiredallthetime
Depends on where the geothermal power can be harnessed? Iceland, sure. Scunthorpe, not so much.
Tsamane
I was thinking about emissions/death rate on it
HeraldofOmega
Solar? Do you have any idea how much toxic waste is produced from making just one solar panel?
arthurvanhoudt
IMHO wind/solar is more polluting if proper storage is taken into account. When volumes get bigger, storage =must costing lotsa raw material
ImaSundayDriver
Petroleum Geologist here, yup. Go nuclear or go home imo
Dakksys
Step 1: Propose new energy plan. Step 2: If your proposed energy method requires burning lots of shit, please return to Step 1.
ItsNotASchoonerItsASailboat
The "% of global energy" adds up to 69% (hehe). Where's the other 31% of global energy coming from??
whatsisname
I've seen other stats showing solar to be much worse than nukes in terms of deaths, as much of solar is rooftop, and as roofing is one of
whatsisname
the most dangerous professions to begin with, a lot of people fall off installing solar panels. I've also seen others saying similar things
whatsisname
regarding wind turbines having a lot of falling accidents, basically furthering the point that nukes are the safest by a good margin.
TChallaVanDam
Sounds like we just need better safety harnesses. Then we could do whatever we want.
Saxytimes
I would like to learn about human interference on nuclear reactors. Can a terrorist do some damage?
Kemi337
Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM
suurmestari
our world in data is a pretty good place for. well researched articles in general https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
thornus67
My understanding of solar/wind is that long-term, large scale storage is the problem. And a major one at that. But if it's solved, great.
override367
the crazy thing about Fukushima is not only how well it performed, but the plant was OLD AS SHIT, it performed amazingly!
override367
More people died from exploding oil infrastructure during that tsunami than from Fukushima
Questionablysensible
More people died from the evacuation than from any other effect of the Daichi meltdown
Gardosurro
So uhhh how did the deaths even happen with Solar?
venomlash
Externalities of mining rare earths?
WhyShouldILoveYou
I'm guessing mostly accidents during installation, e.g. falling from a roof or connecting them to the powergrid.
lordfwahfnah
What greenhouse emissions do you get from hydropower?
ricpaul
Remember reading (decades ago) that the sheer weight of the water could cause issues. Don't remember that ever being brought up since though
iamrunningoutofideas
It takes a huge amount of concrete to build a hydropower dam, and making a huge amount of concrete releases a huge amount of CO2.
CommunCreator
Sure, but that’s a onetime investment. CO2/kWh is almost 0. Hydro power impacts the environment in other ways: flooding, fisheries…
iamrunningoutofideas
Not that close to 0 - as the posted graph shows it comes out as ten times more than nuclear. OWID are pretty good at sources to follow up
TheBurritoConfederacy
If you dam a valley all the plant life that gets flooded dies & rots underwater, releasing GHGs (though I don't know the scope or duration).
UnBobaLievable
Don't forget geothermal!
MostDefinitelyNotACommentBot
Additionally: solar/wind+storage is the immediate future. We simply could not build enough safe, modern nuclear plants in the time we have.
whooptydoo
no, just fucking no. do you have any idea what mass energy storage looks like? pumped water is the only viable option and the energy stored
whooptydoo
is proportional to the amount of land used. responsible fission is available RIGHT NOW and very, VERY FUCKING SAFE. theres been 2, i repeat
whooptydoo
TWO, major catastrophies from fission and both were very avoidable.
AmHumanNotLizardMan
Germany had to stop making more wind because of protests stopping a HV interconnect to the south from their offshore wind. They can make
AmHumanNotLizardMan
more turbines, but the energy can't get to half of their country. What are countries like austria to do? Not enough sun + batteries to
AmHumanNotLizardMan
survive a cloudy week. How would you even build THAT much storage considering we have almost 0 globally right now?
instanoodles
We are never going to build enough storage, we need 10+ Petawatt hour levels of storage and we are making single digit Gigawatt hours now
OhIfIMust
Aren't there a lot of workable options for repurposing reactor "waste," too? Seems to me we could've prevented or walked back a LOT of >
TheoreticalString
Eh, some. A lot of them involve exotic designs that are a bit unproven. Nuclear has some serious work to do.
Xenarion
Dunno if it's still true, but nuclear waste was either buried or used to make nuclear bombs.
themikep
Yes, spent nuclear fuel still has most of its energy still unused, and seems likely that it will be reuseable with better tech
whooptydoo
had a guest lecture from a nuclear physicist in hs. the places they store waste reach thousands of degrees. could easily be used for town
whooptydoo
wide heating, remove the need for snow removal, etc etc etc. fission is fucking great, all the people in this post are dumb as fuck arguing
whooptydoo
against it. put simply, dont build them on fault lines and spend tge momey to regulate safety measures and its fucking amazing.
HedonistBeard
Unfortunately the "workable" part is still worked on - due to the hate nuclear gets it has been rather unpopular to spend money on research.
OhIfIMust
global warming if we just had the will and sense to put nuclear to better use in a big way, and you know, been more careful & conscientious.
sdfsfsfsgs
Yeah, but exploiting mother earth for her resources is cheaper... yadadada
sdfsfsfsgs
2) It's so much cheaper, that using the money generated for discrediting other forms of energy production is more beneficial to shareholders
sdfsfsfsgs
3) than research and development toward moving into other energy sectors.
pyroshen
Oil barons got rich faster and used it to stop competition
whooptydoo
not really. mass energy storage is tremendously bad for the environment. huge chemical batteries are not viable, and the only viable large
whooptydoo
scale energy storage would be pumped water batteries, which the energy stored is directly proportional to the area of destroyed natural
whooptydoo
habitats. even nuclear fission really is not as damgerous as people think, nor is the waste as bad as people think, as im sure youre aware.
whooptydoo
fusion removes both "problems" of fission, amd we are very close to figuring it out. FFS fund fusion research like we subsidize coal and gas
xcrit
I would question the solar related deaths but when my system was getting installed a guy showed up drunk twice and fell off my roof 3 times.
baadf00d
Also, how do you measure deaths/kWh with solar? Do you somehow figure out how much of it was actually used?
ThePunishersVengefulBrother
That's just how roofers work.
Salpinus
Should note that there's not much power made there compared to the others. And these numbers are not based on direct damage from power plant
Salpinus
failure alone, but the estimated deaths related to them (like pollution from coal, death during production of materials etc). Direct plant
Salpinus
failure would probably be dam bursts, the worst took over 240K lives in China in 1975. Reason: extreme floods from Typhoon
Xenarion
It's probably more from mines for materials for solar panels.
beziot
If so, the number of deaths would be higher..?
Keairan
The manufacturing process creates some toxic af byproducts.
Sentrisable
We had to yeet a few people into the sun to make sure it was still working as normal.
CumsInPies
OhIfIMust
stonetemplefox05
Hi there, what is "biomass"?
theendissneer
energy extraction via goobleboxes
EmanNiemThcin
https://www.igb.fraunhofer.de/en/research/algae-biotechnology/algae-biomass-as-a-renewable-energy-source.html
ricpaul
Heavily subsidised biomassplants were built in Netherlands, burning 'real biomass' but also chopped wood from private forests in the US...>
ricpaul
Public view went from support to call for abandonment within a year. Amount of worldwide plants vs. available biomass never made sense to me
Sinthesizer
Woodchips, sawdust, peat, bark etc. Mostly excess material from woodindustry. Highly viable energy in areas with sustained forestry.
myfieldoffuckshasbeenbarrenforyears
Poo
theendissneer
energy extraction via goobleboxes
whooptydoo
basically the same as coal but without mining. utter shite energy source
theendissneer
energy extraction via goobleboxes
DrowningLessons
Car juice
NationalistCanadianMooseWarrior
All the unused bits of livestock. Organs and such. Waste not.
theendissneer
Goobleboxes
theendissneer
energy extraction via goobleboxes
Xenarion
Plant-based fuel.
treed240z
decaying organic material and fecal matter releases methane. You can capture and burn these or use them in fuel cell. Cows shit tons
CommunCreator
Isn’t burning that kind of methane actually a net positive? (Because methane is even more greenhouse-y than CO2.)
treed240z
Yes, plants and algae eat CO2 as well. They don't eat methane.
paperfanman
Fun fact: this is becoming more popular since it can be used with buildings that already have gas infrastructure
RummageSaleBubbler
Pic src: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Laveraz
I was curious about hydro (main source here in Quebec) vs nuclear. Thanks for the graph
GregJeremy
As a manitoban, same. Hydro seems to get passed over in a lot of comparisons. Maybe because it's pretty geography dependant?
RummageSaleBubbler
Quite welcome.
ShadowSquids
So we should be focusing on the last 4
RummageSaleBubbler
And storage tech.
reineseele
What if one person dies because of a wind turbine which got swept away by a storm and it kills in a super twister storm a person !!!! (1/2)
reineseele
will someone please think of the shareholders interest in that one human being that may or may not exist !!! (2/2) (doin a thing fo a thing)
kashflow
Yea but also in alot of 3rd world countries Biomass and Propane work great for cooking without a stove.
crazyspelling
Fuck it, focus on the last 6 for now...
ShadowSquids
Natural gas is pretty bad.
crazyspelling
Yeah, but it's useful in smaller amounts for peaker plants. And it's still better than coal and oil. Useful for transitioning to clean enrg
ShadowSquids
I don;t think its a good idea to keep taking baby steps with this.
Manae
Nuclear--like coal--is great for base load generation. What we really need is better systems for storage for varying loads through the day
RummageSaleBubbler
Absolutely; storage tech is the next frontier. First it removes peaker plants then base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant
paperfanman
YES
LeSethX
Yup, you never want 100% of your energy to come from 1 source. You really want to diversify it
lordfwahfnah
Just like with your Finances
waxster
And sizes of sex toys
gypsyspot
I agree with all of this. Putting emissions aside, some of the death stats are due to scaling up right? >coal deaths bc coal represents 25%
gypsyspot
Don't get me wrong, I'm pro nuclear and renewable.
lilgypsy
I mean yes but once you do the math the scaling up is mostly irrelevant. Nuclear is 4% and .07 Deaths, Coal is 25% and 28 deaths. With this
lilgypsy
we simply multiply nuclear deaths by 6, to represent it's toll if it were roughly equal at 24%, and get .43 deaths compared to 25* from coal
lilgypsy
Also we are both dumb, it says those stats are measured as deaths/kilowat hour of energy produded, so the scale is already built in ???
gypsyspot
There you go
gypsyspot
Even still though it's death/kwh, scaling up increases human error, which I figure is more like a log scale, maybe not be accounted for
gypsyspot
I mean. Mining had never been safe, neither has drilling.