• originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    171
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    imagine how much farther ahead we would be in safety and efficiency if it was made priority 50 years ago.

    we still have whole swathes of people who think that because its not perfect now, it cant be perfected ever.

    • danielbln@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      122
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      So uh, turns out the energy companies are not exactly the most moral and rule abiding entities, and they love to pay off politicians and cut corners. How does one prevent that, as in the case of fission it has rather dire consequences?

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        93
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Since you can apply that logic to everything, how can you ever build anything? Because all consequences are dire on a myopic scale, that is, if your partner dies because a single electrician cheaped out with the wiring in your building and got someone to sign off, “It’s not as bad as a nuclear disaster” isn’t exactly going to console them much.

        At some point, you need to accept that making something illegal and trying to prosecute people has to be enough. For most situations. It’s not perfect. Sure. But nothing ever is. And no solution to energy is ever going to be perfect, either.

        • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          44
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          An electrician installing faulty wiring doesn’t render your home uninhabitable for a few thousand years.

          So there’s one difference.

          • SocialEngineer56@notdigg.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s why there are lots of regulations for things impacting life safety. With a nuclear power plant, you mitigate the disaster potential by having so many more people involved in the design and inspection processes.

            The risk of an electrician installing faulty wiring in your home could be mitigated by having a third party inspector review the work. Now do that 1000x over and your risk of “politicians are paid off” is negligible.

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

              That’s why there are lots of regulations for things impacting life safety

              Regulations that a lot of pro-nuclear people try to get relaxed because they “artificially inflate the price to more than solar so that we’ll use solar”. I’m not saying all pro-nuclear folks are tin-foilers, but the only argument that puts nuclear cheaper than solar+battery anymore is an argument that uses deregulated facilities.

              If solar+wind+battery is cheaper per MWH, faster to build, with less front-loaded costs, then it’s a no-brainer. It only stops being a no-brainer when you stop regulating the nuclear plant. Therein lies the paradox of the argument.

            • arglebargle@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You are saying, regulations will fix this? Politicians create the regulations, the fines, and enforcement.

              Political parties are running on platforms of deregulation right now.

              • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Regulations are actually generally created by regulatory bodies, which are usually non-political. For instance, the underwriter laboratory is the major appliance, building and electrical approval body in the United States.

                In most countries, building codes and safety codes are created by industry specialists, people who have been in the industry as professionals for many decades and have practiced and been licensed in the field that they are riding the regulations for.

                There’s a big difference between politicians who are passing these laws, and those writing them who are the regulatory bodies. Generally, as a politicians will simply adopt the codes as recommended by the professional licensing and certification bodies.

                I suppose it will be the end of modern civilization if politicians decide to politicize electrical or building codes. Then we’ll be fucked for sure. We’ve seen that happen before with the Indiana pi bill.

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

                “The Indiana Pi Bill is the popular name for bill #246 of the 1897 sitting of the Indiana General Assembly, one of the most notorious attempts to establish mathematical truth by legislative fiat.”

                • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s plenty safe now, but my electricity rates have doubled because the plant was so over budget and they need to make their money back.

        • sederx@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          a wind mill going down and a nuclear plant blowing up have very different ramifications

          • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Exactly, just like a windmill running and a nuclear power plant running have very different effects on the power grid. Hence why comparing them directly is often such a nonsense act.

        • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          24
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because the energy industry is historically the one lobbying governments for less regulation. Also, has there ever been a nuclear project in the history of mankind that didnt result in depleted Uranium leeching into local watertables and/or radioactive fallout? Your comment is basically tacit acceptance that people are going to act unethically, which, in regards to nuclear power, is bound to have human consequences.

      • Dojan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I mean it’s not the companies operating the facilities we put our trust in, but the outside regulators whose job it is to ensure these facilities are safe and meet a certain standard. As well as the engineers and scientists that design these systems.

        Nuclear power isn’t 100% safe or risk-free, but it’s hella effective and leaps and bounds better than fossil fuels. We can embrace nuclear, renewables and fossil free methods, or just continue burning the world.

        • The_v@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          36
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          The worst nuclear disaster has led to 1,000sq miles of land being unsafe for human inhabitants.

          Using fossil fuels for power is destroying of the entire planet.

          It’s really not that complicated.

          • abraxas@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Except that nuclear isn’t the only, or even the cheapest, alternative to fossil fuels.

          • pedroapero@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Except that powering the world with nuclear would require thousands of reactors and so much more disasters. This doesn’t even factor the space abandonned to store «normal» toxic materials.

            • uis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              This doesn’t even factor the space abandonned to store «normal» toxic materials.

              You mean under ground from where it was dug out?

              • pedroapero@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The plant itself, water inevitably getting in contact with wastes and leaking also.

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

                  You mean water under ground? It was in contact million years before any of us was born.

                  • pedroapero@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Million years were sufficient for the radioactivity to decay before life started to evolve on earth.

          • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            22
            ·
            1 year ago

            Both sound terrible.

            I don’t really want to pick the lessor of two evils when it comes to the energy.

            • Astrealix@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              24
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              By not picking, you are picking fossil fuels. Because we can’t fully replace everything with solar/wind yet, and fossil fuels are already being burned as we speak.

              • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, give me an option that doesn’t make a part of the world uninhabitable or increases climate change.

                That just a stupid comparison and is there any reason why we can’t also do wind solar thermal hydro also? It’s fossil fuels or nuclear and that’s it?

              • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, give me an option that doesn’t make a part of the world uninhabitable or increases climate change.

                That just a stupid comparison and is there any reason why we can’t also do wind solar thermal hydro also? It’s fossil fuels or nuclear and that’s it huh?

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

                  I never said we can’t do also wind, solar, thermal, and hydro; in fact we have to do all of them. But, hydro isn’t possible in most places (and also makes “a part of the world uninhabitable” too — look at how much the Three Gorges Dam displaced, for example), nor is geothermal. And wind and solar are inconsistent — great as part of it, but they can’t be the entirety of the grid, unless you want the entire country to go dark on a cloudy day, cuz we simply can’t make batteries store that much.

              • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                1 year ago

                The option proposed is that making a small area of the planet inhabitable or worsening climate change. Sorry but that’s a shitty comparison.

                • SocialEngineer56@notdigg.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No. The original comment said the “worst disaster made a very small she’s of the planet uninhabitable”. Keep in mind this disaster was the result of Soviet incompetence and completely avoidable with standards implemented in the US.

                  They’re saying our “worst case scenario” using nuclear power is better than worst case scenario continuing to use fossil fuels.

                  Likelihood of worse case scenario using nuclear power is also extremely low. Whereas worst case scenario (billions of people dying) for continuing to use fossil fuels is EXTREMELY HIGH.

                • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Bet you’d feel* differently if you were a resident of one of the island nations that’s going to drown in the next decade or two. That part of the world’s definitely going to be uninhabitable if we continue to do nothing.

                  • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    So installing a nuclear reactor in my province where we have ample hydro electric power options would save that island?

                    It’s like you are yell at everyone saying nuclear power or die. There are lots of options to clean reliable energy. In some cases nuclear will be the best option but not always.

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

                This is an important comment. We need to collectively, outright, use less of everything.

                Admittedly, fighting even my own goddamn subconscious and its desires is tough. “Get that new motorcycle, it’s got better emissions standards than your old bike”… old one’s just fine.

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

              Hello, my German friend. I hope your gas reserves are full and coal dust is filling your lungs. /joke

        • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Don’t push nuclear power like it’s the only option though.

          Where I live we entirely provide energy from hydro power plants and nuclear energy is banned. We use no fossil fuels. We have a 35 year plan for future growth and it doesn’t include any fossil fuels. Nuclear power is just one of the options and it has many hurdles to implement, maintain and decommission.

          • Astrealix@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            35
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Honestly, if you can, hydro is brilliant. Not many places can though — both because of geography and politics. Nuclear is better than a lot of the alternatives and shouldn’t be discounted.

              • Astrealix@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                18
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Which each have their drawbacks. Just as an example, though not representative of the majority, what do you do about months of no sun in the Arctic Circle for solar power? There is no single solution to this problem. Nuclear is better than fossil fuels by far, and we should not just throw it away out of fear.

              • Astrealix@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                23
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                I know it’s a damn lot easier than carbon recapture, if we’re talking waste products. It’s not ideal, but there is no such thing as perfect, and we shouldn’t let that be the enemy of good. Nuclear fission power is part of a large group of methods to help us switch off fossil fuels.

                • EMPig@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  12
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  “Easier”? Are you aware of the fact that radioactive waste tombs are meant to stand for millions of years? It requres a lot of territory, construction and servance charges, and lots of prays for nothing destructive happens with it in its “infinite” lifetime.

                  • Astrealix@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Have you tried capturing gas? As difficult as radioactive waste tombs are, they’re easier than containing a specific type of air lol.

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

                We can bury it in the ground and it will literally turn into lead. How are you doing with carbon emissions? Got a fix?

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

                  I think it’s photosynthesis. ‘Bury in the ground’ is an extreme simplification btw. Also, I am finished with this topic scince long anough. It feels politically biased. If you’d like to reply, I’d hear it gladly. But I m not going to be involved into a discussion.

                • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Launching radioactive waste into space is a terrible idea, because rockets on occasion crash. Once that happens it becomes a nuclear disaster.

                  Instead we can safely store it in depleted mines.

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

                    Mines fill up with water if they’re not constantly pumped out. Even the salt mines which seemed like a solution were found to have this issue

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

            It would be cool to see huge investments into battery storage. If we could create a battery that doesn’t just leak energy from storing, we could generate power in one location and ship it out where it’s needed. There could be remote energy production plants using geothermal or hydroelectric power that ship out these charged batteries to locations all over. It would let us better utilize resources instead of having to have cities anchored around these sources.

            Or we could generate a ton of power all at once, store it and use it as needed rather having to have on demand energy production

            Hell with better batteries even fossil fuels begin to be climate friendly since you could store the massive energy created and know you’re using close to 100% of it.

            • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It would be cool to see huge investments into battery storage.

              Globally humanity already invests over 10 Billion dollars per year in advancing battery technology.

              If we could create a battery that doesn’t just leak energy from storing…

              In order to build what you are talking about will almost certainly require real room temperature super conductors. We can get close, maybe, with the next generation of Aluminum-Air or Iron-Air batteries but this is big pimping. It’s incredibly complicated and difficult.

              It’s like Fusion Power. We can see a future where we have it figured out and working but it’s still some years, if not decades, away.

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

                Power lines would still mean we need energy on demand though wouldn’t it. And if we can transport energy from an area like a huge solar array in the Sahara to Kazakhstan or China it would be better. I was just raising it as an off thought like maybe theres more ways to think about solving this problem than just building plants. What level of storage ability could we have that would let us build a large solar array in the Sahara to power Africa and Europe vs just building more plants. I think our end goal will be energy storage and like you brought up transport/transmission. I think that because I think we have energy production pretty well solved

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

              Kind of an unconventional battery, but I’ve heard of solar and wind being used to pump water uphill into reservoirs and then released through a hydro plant when the sun/wind aren’t shining/blowing. I’d be curious to know the amount of production lost from storing it this way.

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

                I heard the loss comes from evaporation. Another cool idea I heard was using a mining cart. So its not practical but I think the idea is cook because I’m pretty science illiterate but it got me thinking about what a battery actually is. So you drag a mine cart up a hill with energy produced using renewable energy and then let it go down the hill and collect the stored energy with its motion. Technically there isn’t anything like evaporation so you could store the mine cart up the hill with no energy loss.

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

                  Interesting. Didn’t consider the evaporation. I imagine friction could effect the minecarts, but no idea to what degree. Some loss is gonna happen so matter what. If I’m understanding correctly, even nuclear, built away from population centers, will lose some power due to transmission distances.

          • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            18
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why do you think they’re pushing it for a reason? Renewables are very much a great option without the nuclear power. I hate that they’re here, but the nuclear activists are definitely here. 3 words, Fukushima, Fukushima, Fukushima.

            • Astrealix@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              How many 9.1 magnitude earthquakes do you think there are? And the reports following the disaster showed that there were definitely ways to prevent it from happening, like, for example, not building it so close to the sea.

                • Astrealix@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I mean, if we want to go down that path, there’s no reason to think that governments won’t just stick to fossil fuels and fuck us all.

                  Even so, it took a literal once-in-a-century earthquake in the right place to send a tsunami to the perfectly misplaced reactor to actually make just one person die. One. And two died from the aforementioned massive tsunami caused by an earthquake that occurs around once a century.

                  • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    arrow-down
                    8
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I watched that in real time, more than one person died and it ruined a whole region that they’re just now sort of recovering from. It was devastating to them. You’re not even making any sense.

            • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The nuclear power plant decades older than Chernobyl that got hit by an earthquake and a tsunami and resulted in a only single death and some expensive clean up?

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

              You know there’s a crapload more reactors than Fukukishima, right? Like over 70% of France’s energy demands are met with nuclear power.

              The issue here is that you are parroting the devisive argument that investors in oil have been putting out for decades. You are also ignoring the harm that outputting millions of tonnes of carbon-based effluent has on the world’s population as a whole.

              Gram for gram nuclear is safer and your horror stories should be discounted. Retort:

              2023 Marco Pol…Sweden, Karlsh…22 October 2023Lennard en z’n …United Kingdo…26 March 20232023 Princess …Philippines, Pol…28 February 20232022 Keystone …United States, …7 December 2022

              Cool, keep on with your ‘nuclear bad’ narrative. It does objectively less harm than carbon-based energy.

              • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                The push for nuclear power across social media is 100% an industry sanctioned psyop.

                Oh please, I’ve been advocating for nuclear power since before most people even owned a dial up modem. You younger ones see everything through a haze of recency bias.

              • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                14
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s so stupid too, Fukushima just released their contaminated water from over 10 years ago into the ocean last week. Do they not read the news? At least wait until disaster news from actual nuclear power plant disasters aren’t fresh in everyone’s minds.

        • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem is its potential for harm. And I don’t mean meltdown. Storage is the problem that doesn’t seem to have strong solutions right now. And the potential for them to make a mistake and store the waste improperly is pretty catastrophic.

          • Dojan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Nuclear waste” sounds super scary, but most of it are things like tools and clothing, that have comparatively tiny amount of radioactivity. Sure it still needs to be stored properly, very little high level waste is actually generated.

            You know what else is catastrophic? Fossil fuels and the impact they have on the climate. I’m not arguing that we should put all our eggs in one basket, but getting started and doing something to move away from the BS that is coal, gas, and oil is really something we should’ve prioritised fifty years ago. Instead they have us arguing whether we should go with hydroelectric, or put up with “ugly windmills” or “solar farms” or “dangerous nuclear plants.”

            It’s all bullshit. Our world is literally on fire and no one seems to actually give a fuck. We have fantastic tools that could’ve halted the progress had we used them in time, but fifty years later we’re still arguing about this.

            At this point I honestly hope we do burn. This is a filter mankind does not deserve to pass. We’re too evil to survive.

            • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              We do have fantastic options, water, wind, and sun renewables. Let’s focus on them.

            • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              16
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yea both are horrible. But we can get off fossil fuels and walk away. We can’t with nuclear. It’ll always be with us and doesn’t solve that we need fossil fuel for other things.

              Jets and ships are still going to need fossil fuels.

              Which is why I think the best thing we could be doing right now is focusing on improving how energy is store. With the right advancement we could solve a lot of these problems with the right battery.

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

                Mercury will always be with us. Arsenic will always be with us. PFAS will always be with us. Natural radiation will always be with us. Fortunately, nuclear waste is easily detectable, the regulations around it are much stronger, the amount of HLW is miniscule and the storage processes are incredibly advanced

                Moreover, most Nuclear waste won’t always be with us. A lot of fission prodcuts have half lives in the decades or centuries

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

                  Sure, but doesn’t that just increase the nuclear waste storage issue if we turn all these vehicles nuclear powered

                  • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Not hugely. Actual nuclear waste, not just mildly radioactive uniforms and similar material, is extremely small and compact for the amount of energy generated.

        • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          How do you get the uranium or thorium? Generally, it has to be mined. Are we using nuclear powered mining equipment? No. We use fossil fuel powered mining equipment. Then we use fossil fuels to power the trucks that take the depleted nuclear product to the storage depot, which is powered and requires employees who drive there using fossil fuel powered vehicles, using fossil fuel powered warehouse equipment. When does nuclear power phase out the fossil fuel power? Are we going to decommission oil and coal production facilities? Or are we just going to use nuclear to augment the grid?

          • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Don’t forget all the fossil fuels used in machinery that builds nuclear power plants, and the CO2 emissions from all of the concrete used.

            Oh, and if you start building a nuclear power plant right now it will be online (maybe) in a decade or two and hopefully for only 150% of the initial cost. There’s a nuclear power plant in Georgia that is $17 BILLION over budget.

      • BlushedPotatoPlayers@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        While that’s true, we still have for example safe air travel, although I’m pretty sure companies would be happy to ship their passengers minced to maximize their profit.

        Also, thorium reactors would be a great step forward, unfortunately its byproducts can’t be used for nuclear weapons, so their development was pretty slowed down.

        • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m pretty sure companies would be happy to ship their passengers minced to maximize their profit.

          That actually sounds more comfortable than normal airline travel

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

          Also there was that german experimental Thorium reactor that was so mismanaged, it made Burns’ Springfield power plant look well handled. I think that scared a lot of people off of Thorium for a long time.

          Source: Lived right next to that reactor during my childhood.

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

          If only we had a non fossil energy source we could safely export to developing nations instead of ICE technology.

          (Intenal Combustion Engine)

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Big news worthy accidents are a really good way to ensure strong regulation and oversight. And nuclear is very regulated now so that it has lower death rate than wind power.

        • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes, nuclear accidents are great because then there’s more regulation? That doesn’t sound like a sound argument. You guys are acting crazy.

          • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, they just have a super incredulous public so even inconsequencal things get blown way out of proportion in the news. So there’s more oversight.

            It’s like flying, but to an even greater extent. Because people are afraid of flying and crashes are very public and news worthy, the FAA does a great job investigating incidents and requiring safety improvements. They’ve made it so flying is orders of magnitude safer than driving. A similar thing happens with nuclear. Because the public is scared, the news covers, so the government makes sure it is very safe.

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

              They’ve made it so flying is orders of magnitude safer than driving.

              Not that driving was safe anyway

        • cloud@lazysoci.al
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Or they could just allow everyone to build nuclear reactors in their backyard, everyone is saying that they are safer than a banana so i don’t see any issue

      • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Much much tighter regulations. Our cars aren’t aluminum cans waiting to crush everybody inside them because of strict safety regulations.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Try to arrange the incentives in such a way that if the plant melts down, the company that owns it loses money.

      • Yaztromo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Easy. Have nuclear power plants operate as government run and backed corporations (what we’d call a “Crown Corporation” here in Canada).

        That way you can mandate safety and uptime as metrics over profit. It may be less efficient from an economic standpoint (overall cost might be higher), but you also don’t wind up with the nuclear version of Love Canal.

      • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        And we would be expecting these corrupt Cost cutting types to warehouse nuclear waste for hundreds if not thousands of years while requiring regular inspections and rotation of caskets periodically while also maintaining the facilities. All of that for a product that doesn’t produce any value, it just sits there and accumulates.

        And where does it get stored? Right now almost 100% of waste is stored on site above ground because they really have no good solution. People will say things like “its just a little bit of toxic waste” or “its cool because we could use it in process we don’t have yet but might in the future” and all I can think of is how this was the same thinking that got us into our dependence on our first environmental catastrophic energy source. I’m not confident we that scaling up to another one will end well.

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

          “its cool because we could use it in process we don’t have yet but might in the future”

          Is it quote from 60-ies? We have. At least Russia has. US had too.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right now almost 100% of waste is stored on site above ground because they really have no good solution.

          You mean there’s so little they don’t even need a dedicated facility for it, and it’s safe enough that people are willing to work where it’s stored? Sounds great!

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

            Combustion engine sounded great too before the entire world started using them everywhere. You trust corporate interest to store this material for hundreds if not potentially thousands of years.

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

                But it isn’t concrete. It needs constant maintenance and inspection. The casks need to be monitored and rotated out when they begin to erode and break down. Whose doing that for 1009 years?

    • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s fine to think of it as imperfect, even if those imperfections can never be truly solved.

      We only need nuclear to bridge the gap between now and a time when renewable CO2 neutral power sources or the holy grail of fusion are able to take the place the base load power that we currently use fossil fuels for, and with hope, that may only be a few decades away.

      • Kool_Newt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Degrowth is the only realistic solution.

        Anybody who thinks humans and civiilization will exist in 200 years without degrowth is living in a fantasy world. We can’t solve our problems of fossil fuel dependence and an ever-growing population with recycling, denser housing, and nuclear power. Nature needs space, not everyone wants to live like a sardine in a dense city.

        Where will we get our nitrogen fertilizer at massive scale w/o fossil sources?

        Use of fossils are the only reason humanity was able to grow way outside the bounds of normal Earth capacity. Without fossils we’ll be forced into a sustainable relationship with our planet and that probably isn’t 8 billion or more people living in “civilized society” regardless of it’s efficiency.

        And no, I"m not an “eco-fascist” and don’t want genocide or want poor people or brown people to disappear, don’t fall into false dichotomies.

        • Zink@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The estimates I’ve seen project the world population will hit a peak before long, and gradually decline. It’s because of birth rates declining as development/education/wealth rise in a region.

          Plus looking that far ahead, humans will probably have technologies that we today don’t even know are possible. If we had all the energy and high tech new materials we needed, many more options become possible.

        • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Eco-fascist outcomes come from Eco-fascist methods. How do you propose to accomplish this degrowth without subjecting the world’s population to genocide and privation?

          Human nature is to strive, to fight for a better life for themselves and their communities. The preservation of agrarian lifestyles and “harmony with the planet” a bunch of backwards romantics push is not more important than the betterment of the species, no matter how much people cry about it.

          If people need to live in dense cities, then they will live in dense cities.

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

            genocide and privation

            It’s opposite of degrowth. It is capitalism with its wide beastly grin.

            The preservation of agrarian lifestyles and “harmony with the planet”

            I like how you mix it togerher under pro-nuclear thread about combating climate change. Also it says you didn’t research what degrowth is and possibly doesn’t have even common sense.

            is not more important than the betterment of the species, no matter how much people cry about it

            And it is you who calls someone fascist?

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

                No, when you improve people’s living condition is called improving people’s living condition. Americans call it socialism.

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Okay let’s break it down.

              De- means the opposite of. Growth is when things get bigger. De-growth means shrinking human resource usage.

              How can we shrink human resource usage? Two ways:

              1. Shrink the human population. ie genocide.
              2. Shrink the resource usage per person. ie privation.

              Address the question. How is “degrowth” not a dog whistle for either killing hundreds of millions of people, or forcing hundreds of millions of people to live in poverty?

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

                Not OP but:

                • population control (is hard but) can be done in a way that in 20-30 years starts having effect. Genocide is not the only way to reduce population?
                • reducing the consumption of individuals does not amount necessarily to starvation and poverty either. Right now we produce too much and too poorly. Reducing consumption might mean less conspicuous consumption from the top 50% of the population but also less “things” that last more.

                In both these examples unfortunately the main obstacle is economic.

          • Kool_Newt@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            8 billion plus humans are not sustainable on Earth regardless of how efficient our electrical production is, how cool Tesla’s cars are, or how many people go vegan. Nature will bring our numbers to sustainable levels if we don’t do it. Nature will not be so kind.

            How do you propose to accomplish this degrowth without subjecting the world’s population to genocide and privation?

            • Education
            • Opportunity
            • Help those who don’t want to give birth not to give birth
            • Reduce the influence of religion that promotes childbirth and irresponsible family planning
            • Reduce the influence of pressure to grow in every way that is likely exacerbated by capitalism

            I find it funny that those who immediately go to genocide are the ones implying I have the sick mind.

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nature will bring our numbers to sustainable levels if we don’t do it.

              Are you proposing that we do it? How exactly does reducing the number of humans work, if we do it? Is there any word for this that isn’t “genocide”?

            • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              8 billion people is absolutely sustainable, we could support significantly more at a modern standard of living with just the resources we use today. The problem is the way we organise how and where we live, and a parasitic owner class using and abusing vastly more resources than they could ever need.

              • Education
              • Opportunity
              • Help those who don’t want to give birth not to give birth
              • Reduce the influence of religion that promotes childbirth and irresponsible family planning
              • Reduce the influence of pressure to grow in every way that is likely exacerbated by capitalism

              And if after all that people still want to have children?

              Nature will bring our numbers to sustainable levels if we don’t do it. Nature will not be so kind.

              Let it try, we’ll see who wins.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              who do you educate? those people will be genocided.

              who do you give birth control to? those people will be genocided.

              there is no policy you can create and implement that will not disproportionately effect one group over another.

              it’s all genocide.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          How is degrowth realistic at all? And how does degrowth happen in a way that isnt billions of people starving to death?

          • Kool_Newt@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Uh, lower birth rates? …which can be helped along with expanding education and birth control. I’m pretty sure religion and capitalism promote growing populations, if we could reduce the power of either of those, that too could have significant effect.

            I find it odd how limited your brain is that you could only conceive of two possibilities, infinite growth or genocide.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or that our other imperfect solutions like the fossil fuels we continue to use now aren’t worse.

    • Yaztromo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      If the Soviets hadn’t cut corners and Chernobyl hadn’t happened in this first place, this is likely where we would already be.

    • NightAuthor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      If I recall, 50 years ago we didn’t have the technology/understanding of nuclear fuel enough to make as much as we can now. When I did a school paper on the subject like 20 years ago, they were saying nuclear wasn’t sustainable because we didn’t have enough fuel.

      My understanding is that that has changed recently with breakthroughs in refinement of fuels.

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      One reason it wasn’t made a priority 50 years ago is because Jimmy Carter - a nuclear submariner who understood the risks and economics - decided it wasn’t a good idea.

      This is a man who was present at a minor nuclear accident, who helped create the modern nuclear submarine fleet, acknowledging that nukes weren’t going to help during the height of the Oil Embargo.