News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
The other ones don't fail catastrophically like nuclear does.
The other ones don't produce waste that is the worst kind of toxicity for Humanity that lasts for hundred of years.
Solve those problems, and I'll get on board that train.
Comparing (some) other forms of energy's deaths to nuclear is like comparing mosquito bites to shark bites. A sharks kill a lot less people than mosquitoes, but a mosquito bite won't make the news.
Well, we all die at some point, be it from malaria, nuclear fallout, cancer, car accidents, heart failure, stupidity, etc.
There are more mosquitoes on the planet than they are nuclear reactors, So I'm not sure what you think you're trying to show with that graph.
The point is a nuclear reactor failing catastrophically, yeah it's a more rare event than dying from malaria, but we seem to treat malaria treatment better than we do reactor designs and operations, especially when profits are involved.
And a person dying for malaria, doesn't put a pox of the lands around them for centuries making it unusable to anyone else. The risk versus reward calculation is much different, it's not strictly just a quantity of deaths issue.
And even if you want to talk just about the odds of failure/death, I'm sure all the dinosaurs scoffed at the idea of being killed by an asteroid, until one fateful day (how's that for a non-sequitur example!). Or flying by plane is the safest form of travel, unless you're in a 737 Max, then safety be damned.
The graph is per terra-watt hour. My point is that watt for watt nuclear is actually one of the safest forms of energy.
Many deaths over a period of time aren't necessarily better than less deaths in an instant.
And flying is the safest form of travel, which makes the Boeing 737 Max the Chernobyl of planes I guess.
The point is the chance of failure, even if they haven't happened in a higher quantity so far, is very high, higher in nuclear power plants as they are currently designed or have been designed in the past, than other forms as you have described or supposedly newer ones that are on the designing boards as we speak. And when they fail, they fail too catastrophically, too horrendous for Humanity to have too many of those.
Just one more time, because I don't want to keep the conversation up, but I'm not anti-nuclear, just anti-old and current nuclear. Get those new smaller salt based low risk of catastrophic failure easier to operate by humans and handles human errors more gracefully reactors out there and I'll be just fine with those.
Does climate change caused by the coal industry not fall under the "pox of the lands" category?
Eventually, yes, but a lot slower. And you can definitely put one as an S tier threat and the other one as an A tier threat.
And as I stated, if we have fusion and solar/battery then we don't have to worry about that from either of them anymore.
BP gulf oil spill.
Fracking, contaminated ground water
I would still argue those are less catastrophic than Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, etc. Their destructive effects disappear a lot quicker than a nuclear catastrophe negative effect would.
Having said that, oil is second worse after nuclear. I'm not advocating for oil.
My hopes are on fusion and solar/battery.
No form of energy generation is 100% perfect.
My hopes are that goalposts don't keep moving in this thread.
Well, then stop moving them. /shrug
I have not.
I'm sorry, I can't take the word of someone who's afraid of zombies.
Those problems literally HAVE been solved. You're talking about a disaster from 50 years ago. Nuclear is quite literally one of the safest forms of energy production we have. And the waste is really not much of an issue. Not only is most of it recycled into new fuel, the entire United States hasn't even made enough fuel to fill a football field since we started using nuclear power.
And are those designs in production today, or still on the drawing board?
What percentage of reactors today have this new design that you speak of?
Citation required, because I remember them having to dig out a huge underground storage mine somewhere in the Southwest (nearby Vegas if my recollection is accurate) to handle all the waste that would be generated between all the power station reactors and all the hospitals that use radioactive devices and everything else.
Yes those designs are already in use today. Modern reactors are incredibly safe. The only modern disaster was Fukushima and that didn't even cause any deaths and was brought on by a tsunami.
And here is your source. And this is for ALL nuclear waste in the world.
This is a good video to learn more about nuclear power and how many people misunderstand it.
Fair enough, thanks for sharing.
So like I said, the catastrophic failure effects are my primary concern, though I am concerned about dealing with the waste product.
Having said that, that's still a lot of waste that your documentation is talking about, and it'll be around for centuries. I don't think it makes your point as well as you think it does.
Better to have other forms of energy that doesn't generate that sort of waste, or make sure we have one hell of a foolproof (not verified by biased corporations) of preventing that waste from getting into the environment either accidentally or on purpose/terrorism.
The waste is still very much a non issue in the short term (i.e. 100 years) while we desperately need clean energy options now. And that waste is nothing compared to the billions of tons of c02 we release yearly. And we DO have ways of stopping it from getting into the environment. It's not some new thing that they are just now figuring out. That issue was solved years ago! The storage containers they use can literally be hit by speeding freight trains and not leak. There have been almost no incidents of spent nuclear fuel causing environmental damage. I honestly think that oil companies have been gaslighting people (no pun intended) about how "dangerous" nuclear is just so they can keep building more refineries.
Got to ask and why Japan is dumping all that water into the ocean from Fukushima if it's easy to handle and store.
Yes, I know, they deemed it safe to do so, but still, why aren't they just storing it instead (like they have been so far; just make new storage, there's plenty of land, especially around where people can't live anymore), if it's so easy to do so, as you advocate?
What today's science deems as safe may be deemed as hazardous by tomorrow's science.
Also, transportation to the storage locations, and the maintenance of the storage locations, still an issue. Other forms of energy doesn't have the storage of waste byproducts problem.
Trust me I'm very anti-oil, I can't wait for fusion to come along finally, and for solar/battery to be better and more widely used than it is today.
The coal industry emits magnitudes more unvetted radiation than any nuclear power plant will in it's whole lifetime; as in, radiation is undetectable around a modern nuclear plant.
Plus coal and oil extraction has it's own problems with radiation. Nuclear produces stable, storable waste that if handled and buried correctly will never become an ecological issue.
They're built to a modern standard where it's practically foolproof. Fukushima held up to an enormous earthquake followed by several tsunamis; that's despite the poor operation of the plant.
The damage we would have to cause to compromise and get rid of any nuclear reliance is far more immediate and concerning.
Nuclear isn't actually as complicated nor unpredictable as you'd think. They've solved ways to avoid melt downs such as the fuels being improved, the amount they process at one time, their cooling and the redundancies. The physical design of a modern station takes into account the worst situations that any given amount of fuel can give in a meltdown such as deep wells that are situated under a reactor to melt into. You won't likely ever see in our lifetimes a station reaching critical meltdown and it not be because a government or private company cut corners.
Scientists are doing this work, they know what they know and they know what they're doing, it's not really for everyone to politically involve ourselves with when no one ever does any valid research or basic knowledge of science without fear mongering.
So that's a wall of text, with all the same standard counter points that is always made, some of which I disagree with, so I'll just say I'm not anti-nuclear, I'm just anti-nuclear in its current design form.
You give me a design that can protect the environment from catastrophic effects and with a waste product that can be safely handled, and I'll get on board.
I had read there is some salt based designs kicking around that seem to start going in that direction, but I don't know if they've been moved forward or not.
Actually it wasn't so much the poor operation of the plant, but the failure of the design of the plant to not take into account that after a major earthquake the elevation of the land that the plant sits on would go down, which makes the wall they put up the protect the plant from the ocean (especially after a tsunami) shorter than it should have been.
I'm actually quite informed on the subject.
Someone disagreeing with you is not fear-mongering.
Generally when a fact is established it does become the "standard counterpoints" people use.
You personally said "Nuclear waste is scary" - that's why I said people fearmonger. If you're informed you'd actually understand it's a very safe form of waste
Also you said it wasn't due to poor operation, but then state an example of a plant being poorly operated. If those were obvious and established problems that they already should have been able to account for, then someone dicked it up. Nuclear is only dangerous when it's irresponsibly used. We already have accounted for the mayor pitfalls. It's not worth saying it's dangerous, bad for the environment, or scary in terms of waste.
Nuclear energy isn't some half theory or some risky experiment, it's pretty well established and understood at this point.
I also said people in general shouldn't be so politically involved when they're not informed, I actually said that because I shared and hoped you would be able to agree on that. I wasn't demeaning you.
The point I was trying to make was that the plants operation was one risk, while it's waste output was a second risk.
That wasn't fear-mongering, that was stating facts.
But to be blunt, if an area is destroyed because of nuclear waste then that is kind of scary, a land that can't be lived in anymore (or for a very long time) it's something right out of a fiction story (Mordor-ish).
Expressing that is not fear mongering, its a real possibility, we see that today around nuclear reactors that have catastrophically failed. We humans rarely 'salt the Earth' so we can't live in a place anymore, it's anathema to what we believe in.
Which always happens sooner or later because human beings are involved. The current designs can't cope for humans being humans (especially for those who love profits) and their flaws are exaggerated to catastrophic proportions.
Well since you were replying to me directly in an argumentative tone, I could only assume that point was directed at me. And that statement is that I'm commenting uninformed, which is not correct, and hence why I pushed back.
What I do usually to avoid that misunderstanding is that I explicitly state something along the lines of "not you directly, but generally" when I'm trying to make a general comment in response to a specific individual.
I do appreciate you clarifying, and hope that was an honest clarification, and not just trying to avoid the pushback of the criticism that was initially correct.
And finally, I do agree, people should be informed when they comment, but as long as they're not being obstructive there's nothing wrong with also just expressing oneself to others, your fears and hopes, without knowing all the facts. This is supposed to be a conversation, and people can learn new facts while the conversation is happening, versus having to know everything before they enter the conversation.
take a look some excerpts:
as /u/afraid_of_zombies said:
As far as the smog goes that was before catalytic converters and improved laws to reduce smog, and as far as the dam goes yeah you build any dam in a bad place and it's going to break, it's kind of actually another metaphor for what I'm talking about, which is nuclear is more risky because it's more dependent on humans being more perfect to Implement / operate it.
Then take into account modern nuclear reactors, as other commenters said. Nuclear is the way to go for safest and cleanest energy of all energy sources we have. Things that are stopping it are coal/oil lobby, nuclear scare and capitalists and politicians scared other countries might make nuclear bomb out of it.
I'd love to have a nuclear powerplant in my country, we are choking here because of coal and coal lobby just makes things worse by supporting energy sources sold as "renewable clean sources" that need batteries to work on and as a fallback, when there is less sun or wind always go back to coal.
I definitely will, when they're in production. I haven't had anyone tell me that they are yet, just on the drawing book. I'm all for salt based small reactors that are a lot safer to deal with.
What ? One poster in comments said they are getting power from reactor that is same model as Chernobyl one with added improvments and nothing bad happened, I don't get what you mean by "when they're in production" ?
Are you arguing that coal is safer than nuclear ?
I was speaking about the next generation of reactors that are on the drawing board today.