• spirinolas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Downvote me all you want but nuclear is not a long term solution. Short term at best.

    It’s relatively clean compared to fossil fuels but it has several critical flaws on the long term.

    For starters, it produces extremely toxic waste which we have no idea how to get rid of besides burying it and forget about it. Everytime someone mentions this all we hear is “we can create x method to dispose of it cleanly”. Right, but while we develop X method that shit keeps piling up. And when X method fails to work as we intended “oh, well, just keep bury it and lets start thinking about Y”.

    And the biggest problem is this. Nuclear is actually relatively safe since the security regulations are (or should) be very strict. But all it takes is one bad enough disaster. Disasters like Chernobyl had the potential to leave half of Europe inhabitable for centuries. But, hey, as long as the regulations are strict and we have equipment and procedures that manage the human error we would be fine, right? Not really. Murphy’s law. The worst scenario will happen eventually. A obscure bug in the security systems, an unexpected natural disaster, war or terrorism. There’s always a failure point. In other energy types, we can manage that risk. One very rare disaster is not enough to make it not worth it if the good outweights the bad. Not in nuclear energy. Only one disaster can be potentially catastrophic and outweight all the good it made for decades or even centuries.

    On the long term it is just not worth it. On the short term…it’s a gamble.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      You are clueless about how nuclear wastes or radiation work. Any oil tanker sinking is a worst disaster than the worst nuclear accident ever was. A nuclear power plant is not a bomb. Radiations are not a magic disaster that erase life.

      Meanwhile co2 is an actual life extinction threat, and Germany opened coal power plant to compensate for nuclear energy. What a great move ecologists! Bravo !

      • drewdarko@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        What does a sinking oil tanker have to do with anything? That’s just whataboutism. Nuclear waste, nuclear disasters and sinking oil tankers are all bad.

        “Radiations” can absolutely “erase life”. You don’t think radiation can kill living things? That statement makes it clear you don’t know what you’re talking about.

        Besides, It takes 10-15 years to make a new nuclear power plant. If you really care about sinking oil tankers and climate change you’d realize that we don’t have that much time.

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Germany did nothing but burn coal and gas in 20 years since they’ve decided to leave nuclear energy. Is that your plan?

          Radiations don’t erase life. Beaches would be full of dead bodies otherwise and you wouldn’t eat bananas. You have no clue about radioactivity obviously so you might as well trust people who do.

          • spirinolas@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            “Radiations”

            Ahahahah!

            Regardless of how wise it is to use nuclear energy, we can all deduce, from your replies, that you know jack shit about what “radiations” actually is.

            • bouh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Is that something about how English language is so specific? It always come back to that when facts can’t be disproven.

              • Richard@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Then please illuminate how high energy radiation is not dangerous. I do not believe that you can do that, as you appear to never have attended a physics or biology class in your life

          • agarorn@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Germany did nothing in the last 20 years? Are you high. Did you even think about looking up how the energy production changed during that time?

      • spirinolas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Any oil tanker sinking is a worst disaster than the worst nuclear accident ever was

        You are delusional.

        A nuclear power plant is not a bomb

        I never said it was. A nuclear disaster is much worse than a bomb on the long term. A bomb causes immediate destruction and fallout which clears in a few years at most. A bomb like Hiroshima, which is by atomic bomb standards a very “dirty” bomb, gave a radiation dosage of about 360 mSv to survivors 1 mile from the epicenter. The radiation went down to 1/1000 in 24 hours and 1/1000 of that within a week.

        Chernobyl firemen received 37 times the same dosage and the core kept emitting radiation to this day (though slowly diminishing) hence the sarcophagus.

        Hiroshima was never even abandoned after the bombing. It is a thriving city today. Chernobyl and the surrounding regions had tp be evacuated and its access is restricted to this day. In the Russian invasion you had soldiers dying because they digged in contaminated soil. The melted core is, to this day, emitting deadly radiation and only the sarcophagus stops that poison from spreading. And it could’ve been much worse. And it will stay this way for centuries or even millenia. A breach in the sarcophagus is enough reason for panic. This was ONE disaster.

        The current climate crisis is the result of over a century of CO2 emissions and multiple disasters. Chernobyl was just one and had the potential to turn half a continent uninhabitable. How many would we need to turn the planet into a wasteland in the immediate future?

        I’m all to take measures to keep global warming in check but lets not burn the house down because the plumbing is not working.

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          You have 0 clue about radioactivity, how dangerous it is, how it works or even what it is. You are comically ignorant! You’ll certainly tell me that chernobyl killed more people than Hiroshima and nagasaki bombs now?

          Everyone needs its scarecrow I guess. Beware of bananas btw, those things are radioactive too.

          • spirinolas@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You failed to address any of my arguments. You only attacked me and put words in my mouth. I see no point to keep answering you.

          • Richard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Bananas are not radioactive, as they do not contain a significant amount of radioisotopes that emit high energy ionising electromagnetic radiation or alpha/beta decay products.

            • bouh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ignorance again! Or is it hypocrisy? What is significant? What is radioactive?

    • Ronno@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is probably the only thing that can really buy us time. Sure we cannot dispose of its waste currently, but it buys us time to find a way. We will find a way to solve the waste issue. Besides, the waste produced is actually quite little, and we do have great solutions for storage. As for your second point, Chernobyl could have been an even worse disaster indeed, but it is a plant built in a time when it was fashionable to built bigger and larger plants. Today, the strategy is to built the plants smaller, making the impact of such disaster also smaller.

      • spirinolas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It is probably the only thing that can really buy us time

        That’s the only way it would make sense as a solution. It’s a gamble, but it’s a risk worth taking in the short term. But that only works with already built reactors.

        We will find a way to solve the waste issue

        “we will”, but we haven’t. We’re creating a problem now and leave the solution for later which is exactly what got us into this mess. Always kicking the can down the road.

        Today, the strategy is to built the plants smaller, making the impact of such disaster also smaller.

        Still potentially catastrophic in a perfect storm. Remember Chernobyl had multiple reactors (who kept functioning) after the disaster. That was only one. I don’t think downsizing would solve the risk but I hope I’m mistaken. Remember how we went into panic when the Russians entered Chernobyl or whenever we see news about Zaporozhia?

        We haven’t seen yet the worst possible nuclear energy disaster. I fear we might not see many…

        • Iceblade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just to refute a simple statement for you, please stop spreading disinformation.

          “we will”, but we haven’t. We’re creating a problem now and leave the solution for later which is exactly what got us into this mess. Always kicking the can down the road.

          Nuclear waste is solved. Probably one of the most solved kinds of waste on the planet, unlike the waste your smartphone or pc will become in a few years.

          Video Essay for your education, better than anything I could write up in five minutes.