this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
72 points (98.6% liked)
British Columbia
1338 readers
88 users here now
News, highlights and more relating to this great province!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Looking at Japan, earthquakes aren't that big of a problem.
Tsunamis that take out the backup energy system and destroy all the surrounding infrastructure.. that was the problem.
In my opinion, nuclear power plants should give away 5% of their energy to surrounding residents and provide district heating. That's only fair to compensate for the reduction in property values.
To each their own! My takeaways from that were that serious accidents generally introduce unexpected complications, we got really lucky with Fukushima and taking chances with one of the most devastating natural phenomena might not be the most best gameplan.
We got lucky? Dude... Sure it can always be worse. Chernobyl could have been worse too.
But actually both of them are really bad in any case. Nothing you want to see repeated, ever.
Fukishima and Chernobyl are nothing alike. Drawing a likeness between them is is incredibly dishonest (or abysmally-informed). There really isn't much in the way of how Chernobyl could have been worse, and a meltdown like Chernoby isn't even possible anymore.
Oh no, Chernobyl could have been a LOT worse. It's really worth learning about.
"If the three courageous men were not successful in their mission the Chernobyl death toll was likely to reach the millions. Nuclear physicist Vassili Nesterenko declared that the blast would have had a force of 3-5 megatons leaving much of Europe uninhabitable for hundreds of thousands of years."
https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-real-story-of-the-chernobyl-divers#:~:text=If%20the%20three%20courageous%20men,hundreds%20of%20thousands%20of%20years.
3-5 megatons? You don't get blasts like that from a ruptured steam vessel. That takes a nuclear explosion. You are aware that not only was Chernobyl not a nuclear explosion, there is nothing in any nuclear power plant anywhere even capable of creating a nuclear explosion of any magnitude, right?
You are welcome to provide a source that backs up your claim, like I did!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown
A source that discusses the possible repercussions of a Chernobyl explosion...
Come on.
Even a casual google will confirm what could have happened.
Edit: heck, didn't realize you were trolling. Or at least, I hope anyone who writes nonsense like "There is no systemic oppression of women and there never has been." Is trolling. Either way, you do you, I'd rather spend time with folks who are worth my time.
Cheers!
Oh, have you already resorted to an internet background check?
A nuclear power plant has nothing capable of creating a nuclear explosion. Nuclear fuel is not capable of going super-critical. You cannot put it into any configuration in which this is the case. No nuclear power plant has ever had a super-criticality event and no nuclear power plant has ever been capable of even producing one.
https://science.fusion4freedom.com/why-a-nuclear-reactor-cannot-explode-like-an-atom-bomb/
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/710668/why-is-it-impossible-for-the-reactor-of-the-nuclear-power-plant-to-turn-into-an
Yes.
My time is valuable and I'm happy to share it with the folks who make Lemmy better.
Cheers.
Nothing alike? You can look up the differences in relocated population etc yourself here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_Chernobyl_and_Fukushima_nuclear_accidents
Look, they are not the same. But the world would be better off if none of the two had happened and we ought to be very fucking sure it never happens again. And I got just the idea how to make sure of that. No, the answer is not coal plants, neither "new and safe" nuclear.
The history of nuclear power could have had 10 Chernobyls and no improvements in reactor design, and it would still be a better, safer source of power than the mix we're using now. The amount of death from nuclear power is unbelievably low. It's infinitessimal compared to other sources, on a per-joule basis. It's even lower than solar power, somehow.
And why in the world would NPPs becoming safer (which, relative to Chernobyl, they already are) not make it an obvious solution? And what solution do you have that's better than NPPs, coal, and gas that would be suitable for base load power? And don't you dare say "wind" or "solar," because those are not dispatchable sources of power.