54
Not a single one (thelemmy.club)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
131 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 104 points 3 months ago (20 children)

why is there such a negative sentiment towards nuclear power? was it all oil and gas propaganda? or is there some truth

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island. Plus uranium is another non-renewable resource.

    I'm still pro nuke as getting off fossil fuels is of the utmost urgency, but we will have to learn to live off wind and solar.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    So what has released more uncontrolled waste into the world, all the nukes including those, or the equivalent mega-wattage of all other human power generation? Our entire global community is FUCKED to the tune of hundreds of trillions of dollars from consequences of petro, while meanwhile very few of us are suffering from the effects of nuclear power generation. Nukes don't replace solar and wind, they complement them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    Ideally we figure out some sweet Nuclear Fusion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Ah yes, the Fusion Reactors that are coming soon (TM) (promised decades ago).

    We need energy now, not at some unknown point in the future. Of course, resaeching this technology may make sense. But it does not help today and also not the next 20 years.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Cold fusion has been 10 years away since early 1960s.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Having become a carbon neutral economy a couple years ago since we obviously adhere to the Paris agreement this does not seem like a good solution as we already (would have to have) deployed solutions based on current technology.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Agree that we can get to carbon neutral / carbon negative with current tech.

    I do think making plans based on having it are foolish at best.

    But I do think we need to keep working on research of it. If we ever hope to achieve a world with "electricity too cheap to meter", nuclear fusion is the key to it. (That and dyson spheres, but that's kinda not in scope of discussion).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    I'd love to see a full production chain breakdown of disasters and their costs to clean up, for both fossil fuel and nuclear.

    Most people's issue is "ooh scary radiation!" without realizing you get more exposure to ionizing radiation by living near a coal fired power plant than a nuclear one. Fuck, you can take a swim in the reactor pool and if you're under the surface away from the nuclear material, the water above you blocks the background radiation you'd be exposed to walking around on the surface.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] [S] -23 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Because it only makes sense if you also need to run nuclear Submarines with ICBMs on them.

    Basically Nuclear power has always been a military project thats just "Dual use" to offset the cost by having tax payers foot the bill for civilians plants.

    Doing that makes the whole supply chain cheaper for the Military usage....cuz mining it only for military usage only would be hella expensive and harder to justify towards the population.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago

    This is only for uranium and plutonium based nuclear power. There are others that don't produce weapons grade byproducts. Helium 3 for instance and other versions of uranium. Also cobalt is an option.

    As long as we want to pay for power, it can be profitable, in the sense that we pay what we need and people who work there are paid fairly as well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent