this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
567 points (94.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43852 readers
1672 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I find it insane that the same people who are anti-fossil fuel and want only green energy is also anti-nuclear power. I also want fossil fuels gone, but nuclear is the only way we are able to get to where we need to.
My only quibble with nuclear power is how irresponsible people are long term. The critical safety failure is always someone incompetent or cutting costs/corners.
Well and that I think distributed generation is more robust. Natural disaster can't take out power to half a state if there's energy being generated and stored all over. The means of production in the hands of the consumers.
Statistically nuclear is by far the safest form of power generation. Of course, it would be good to locate it in areas that are not disaster prone. As far as I understand it though, the issue with nuclear is the cost. But in a perfect world we would need something to smooth out the inconsistency of renewables, either battery tech or something like nuclear that you can turn on and off as needed.
Think less Fukushima and more Texas power grid.
And yeah it is safe, but if it becomes unsafe for whichever reason, it becomes really unsafe. I just don't trust humans to not eventually something stupid.
Well the problem with the Texas power grid is that it exists in the first place. Still, when it comes to safety, you have to multiply how bad it is by the number of people it will affect, and divide by the amount of power generated to get the right picture. There is a media bias towards rare, intense events which causes people to think they are more common than they really are. This explains people's views on nuclear power, school shootings, terrorism, shark attacks etc.
My views are based on knowing the kind of people who are missing fingers from overriding safety features but they still do it
And what happens in the unlikely event of system collapse? If some major cataclysmic event wiped out the world economy and half the worlds population, what happens when suddenly thousands of nuclear plants are abandoned and melt down world wide? Nuclear is safer in a vacuum, but we don't exist in a vacuum. Anything that can happen, will eventually happen. Even if those power plants are able to be shut down safely, in a post stable world, the storage of the spent waste would be incredibly problematic as we would no longer have the capacity or knowledge to bury it 4 miles down. I would say that nuclear power is far more risky long term than people give it credit for. We are evaluating it's risk only based on the present stability and regulations of our current systems. Modern technological stability is really a tiny blip in earths history, we really can't guarantee a future that will know what to do with spent nuclear waste. Nuclear power is really an all-in bet on our own technological dominance of the future.
I say this as someone that is not against nuclear power, but I think people view it as some sort of quick fix when it just presents it's own problems. The truth is, you don't get something for nothing. All energy costs something and that cost should be distributed between several systems and our consumption should be reduced.
Take a look at this video by real engineering. He talks about the future of nuclear power and is quite relevant to your "turn on and off as needed".
Forgot the Link
Nuclear isn't just benefits. There are major costs and risks. It's sad how both sides are so ignorant to the arguments of the other side. And no one is an idiot to came to different conclusions.
The risks of nuclear energy are well managed already. Out of all nuclear power plants built to an even remotely modern design, exactly zero have suffered a meltdown, and I don't see any reason to expect that to change.
That's not the problem. The problem is that modern nuclear power plants are ludicrously expensive to build. Small modular reactors are cheaper, but they have a serious problem with radioactive waste output.
I'd like to stick a nuclear rod up your anus.
wouldn't say this is an unpopular opinion. many people share your pov
*it is one of the pieces of the puzzle. It is not renewable and generates trash that lasts thousands of years. It is another tool, and dismissing it is dumb, but it is not a silver bullet, and also isnβt that desirable for the long run.
But the truth makes Greta sooo angry.