this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
384 points (87.1% liked)
Share Funny Videos, Images, Memes, Quotes and more
2476 readers
160 users here now
#funny
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fission is still much less impactful in terms of environmental damage and hazard in the transitionary period.
I think this is only true if you have an adequate storage facility, since IMHO the hazards of storing high level nuclear waste for years on end on the surface level in sixteen different intermediate storage facilities all over Germany are greater for the people, animals, plants...the whole biosphere.
Fission waste is stored in pools and dry casks and never hurts anybody during normal operation.
Coal waste is belched into the atmosphere 24/7 and contains many bad substances aside from the radioactive ones.
Right. During normal operation the risks are minute, but what about threat scenarios outside of normal operation? Starting on page 112 here's a list of possible threat scenarios as compiled by the Fraunhofer institute: https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/ccv/2013/ETTIS_Deliverable_4_4_Catalogue%20of%20Threat%20Scenarios.pdf
That's also true. But again, being in opposition of using nuclear power plants as long as there is no long term storage facility, does not mean I'm a coal proponent. Coal will be phased out in 2038 and the idea is to build 40 green hydrogen power plants, to enable the transition. There will be no new coal power plants build in Germany according to the current plan.
More than 30 years too late... If, instead, these morons had phased out coal FIRST and relied on Nuclear for the transition, how much damage could we have avoided from the imesureable destruction climate change has caused?
I don't know. I can also ask: How much damage could have been avoided if Chernobyl and Fukushima would have not been built. But IMHO this makes no sense since these hypothetical scenarios are not the topic of this discussion.
Sure thing, astroturfer. Funny, 8 months not posting anything, then suddenly defending oil interests like a guard dog.
It's called interest. I made clear on multiple occasions that being against nuclear power does not make me a proponent of fossil fuel power production. I think we have to get rid of fossil fuel power production as well as nuclear power production.
Please refrain from personal attacks and try to discuss using credible sources and arguments. Hers a primer on discussion skills: https://www.student.unsw.edu.au/discussion-skills
Nuclear waste is not even slightly as dangerous as you've been led to believe.
I don't think that's right. There is a real threat from e.g Plutonium 239 which is extremely carcinogenic and toxic in minute doses.
Here's a collection of threats relating to nuclear power production and it's waste starting on page 112: https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/ccv/2013/ETTIS_Deliverable_4_4_Catalogue%20of%20Threat%20Scenarios.pdf
Source: https://www-bund-net.translate.goog/themen/atomkraft/atommuell/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
You've links ETTIS's risk assessment of nuclear accident likelihood and death count predictions. I would not say that ETTIS is exactly anti-nuclear, as they are pro-green. I could not find anywhere where they communicate their methodology to conclude that four nuclear accidents would occur over 50 years, but if its statistically-based I would say that would not be accurate for modern nuclear systems.
Bund is exactly the type of group the comic above is making fun of. They do not care about the actual chances of meltdown, or the overall safety of nuclear byproduct or nuclear plant operation. They only aim to decommision nuclear power production as much as possible.
I am not against hydrogen power. I do not view it as a feasible technology currently, though. It's like fusion reactors - always 10 years away. Meanwhile, nuclear fission is here, we could be using it over coal and saving thousands of lives per year but we aren't.
Renewables are good, but they still cause more fatalities to workers than nuclear plants, and the battery systems and solar systems currently make use nonrenewable rare earth minerals, so I question if renewables are actually as sustainable as advertised.
Chernobyl detonated due to an engineering oversight directly caused from government interference and cost cutting, and was only triggered when a test was rushed, being executed by a shift not trained to conduct the test.
Fukushima Daiichi had an engineering oversight in that they did not design it to withstand the largest earthquake in Japan's history followed by a tsunami. Meanwhile, Fukushima Daiini was closer to the epicenter, and was able to avoid meltdown.
Even when considering the total number of deaths caused by nuclear plants from explosions, exposure, and health complications, nuclear has killed less than a percent of how many coal has killed. The insane level of opposition does not make sense, and seems to me to only be fueled by fearmongering and ignorance.
Maybe that'd be believable if the dumb fucks switched to something other than FUCKING COAL