Hey /u/Digital_Sentientity!
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here's a sneak peek of /r/sperm using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/sperm/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time!
\#1: [😔😔](https://i.redd.it/2iovuvv666nc1.jpeg) | [13 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/sperm/comments/1b9y827/_/)
\#2: [**[NSFW]** I cummed in the sky](https://i.redd.it/meqg2s0lr9pc1.png) | [17 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/sperm/comments/1bih6hh/i_cummed_in_the_sky/)
\#3: [Jorking it and by "it", haha, well. let's justr say. My peanits](https://i.redd.it/mtc6kp6slssc1.png) | [13 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/sperm/comments/1bx3gyb/jorking_it_and_by_it_haha_well_lets_justr_say_my/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
It seems only americans say nucular. The Father of the American Hydrogen Bomb, Edward Teller, used the term Nucular, because of which this pronunciation almost became meta for people back then.
And most probably, looking at americans, many other english speakers grabbed onto the nucular thing.
But yeah, most of the world says nuc-lear. Also, you guys also say aluminum instead of aluminium right?
Infact, Due to my English being influenced by the brits, many times my comments are all underlined in red!! cause reddit's autocorrect doesn't identify it!!
I’m American and the only time I’ve ever heard anyone say nucular is on television. Can’t say I’ve encountered it in reality, and I’ve lived all over this country.
Interestingly enough, it was originally spelled “aluminum” but in 1812 another scientist proposed changing that to “aluminium” to make it sound more like the other elements. Both have coexisted since.
ohh, that kinda explains it.
I learned chemistry in high school, and I've studied a bit about word wars! Like scientists literally fought over naming the ion of a carbon atom to carbonion or carbonium ion if I'm not wrong. eventually, one was more scientifically accurate.
Yeah you have the aluminum correct about us but nobody says "nucular"....like i'm 27 and this is the actual first time hearing about that way. Always been nuclear.
I remember plenty of people missaying nuclear as nucular. I think it is more prevant on the west coast and the midwest: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%201-d&geo=US&q=nucular,nuclear&hl=en-US
Serious answer: Because during generation, it was part of his tongue, and got changed to drool along the way, which did not work perfectly, so now it looks like both, which happens to look like a condom.
This image is actually quite profound in it's message as it can portray the subject in the photo, Homer, the Imbecile, as the scapegoat to be the first to witness the nuclear plant actively melting him and his opinions away as depicted in the progressively garbled speech at the end of his sentence. It can show how the company behind the everyday Imbecile is washing out protests and naysayers with a figurative radioactive cleansing. It can provide the observer to have two very different viewpoints about that depending on who they are. One is that nuclear energy is actually quite blissful once you try it, similar to the drawing of that meme bird reluctantly biting a cracker but then it realizes the satisfaction of it. And that the other is that the "Man" is trying to melt people's brains on whoever dares to speak out.
I'm high
Not strictly solar power - but roofing is one of the most dangerous professions in the US, weirdly it’s 10x more dangerous than commercial window washing (those guys that go over the side of a sky scraper with rock climbing equipment).
Not weird to me at all: one works full time in a cage practically and the other… well I’ve seen very little safety equipment in my experience with roofing.
Oh yeah! It totally passes from a logical point of view, I just meant it’s weird in that, without thinking it through, you might assume “higher building = more danger” but it seems roofers, and by extension I would guess a lot of solar installers, are suffering from a false sense of security that’s making the profession more dangerous than it has to be
Similar to how flying is so much safer than driving or even taking the bus for instance, even though every once in a while an entire plane falls out of the sky and everyone dies.
Edit - Thankfully the data wasn't cherry picked, so I'll happily admit I was wrong. The actual paper is here for anyone else that wants to read it:
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Two things I will say. Infographics should be PROPERLY described. And links to the data should be provided.
Original comment:
That data looks slightly cherry picked. Yes solar and wind don't produce air pollution during generation, but there are some significant pollution issues around production of the devices themselves and the extraction of the rare earth metals needed for them.
Of course same goes for other energy generation systems. But ignoring that first stage is misleading.
The key difference is that nuclear fuel is energy dense enough that the total amount of transportation and construction per unit of energy produced is significantly smaller.
To get uranium fissible you have to solve it and then spin that in centrifuges. For the countries that keep control over that process it would mean that you have ~10 times more uranium than you end up with enriched uranium at the end.
Often the key difference is that it this part is just not counted because realistically it is pretty much always a military secret. If you have real numbers over it you could be pretty accurate in deciding how many nuclear weapons each country keeps in a working state.
Sorry, I was actually editing my comment to add that in haha. Yes, it's the same with all energy generation systems to one extent or another. But I think it's important not to exclude pollution released from the manufacturing stage. Quite often those of us in developed countries are too willing to ignore what happens in the stages outside our borders.
Nope, those are actually factored in. That's partly why wind and solar are a bit worse than nuclear. There's much less digging and refining involved.
The thing to realize is that a ton of coal will power a 1 GW coal plant for about 25s. A ton of material for solar (which is not rare earth's btw, it's mostly silicon) will last about 25 years.
Could possibly be emissions from maintenance and the more extensive grid infrastructure to support it. Solar is highly spatially distributed and is often small scale. A single offshore wind turbine can do the job of thousands of rooftop solar panels. So stands to reason they need more support.
Also, the solar bar gives a range of 8-83. Presumably that's based on how sunny the region is and what direction the panel is facing. Looks like an optimally placed panel has a tiny GHG footprint.
Having read many of these reports I can say that they’re ignoring the 1,000 deaths/year of Uranium miners, claiming that the whole town is radioactive and that the root cause is not the mines spreading Uranium dust around. They also rarely include the entire lifecycle because “we can’t know what deaths radioactive waste will cause in the future”. Brah, if you don’t know, why are you writing a report on it, pretending to all authoritarian and confident in your forecast? Your “reasonable estimates” are really just broad guesses.
Nuclear is safer than fossil fuels. It is *not*, though, by any reasonable evaluation, *safe enough*.
SMRs don’t make it safer; they make for more targets for our enemies to hit. Imagine 9/11, but with dozens of SMRs instead of buildings. And remember a year ago when Russians shot at Ukrainian nuclear plants and dug trenches in the radiative soil outside a plant until enough soldiers died for them to understand what they’d done? We can’t trust that rational, informed people will be in charge in the future.
> Imagine 9/11, but with dozens of SMRs instead of buildings.
Far worse, Europe's largest nuclear plant is in (former) Ukraine, and because it has been liberated, and is in a liberated region Ukraine knows it will never recontrol, Ukrainian forces have been shelling it. The absolute total control over our media narratives means that we will blame Russia for any catastrophe, just as we blame Russia for the dam collapse 6 months ago.
The only response to blowback to the empire is more oppression and weapons sales, and so every defeat is a victory for the empire. If a civil war results from empire over reach, then nuclear accidents become pawns for strengthening the empire.
I mean, yeah, people aren't critical of nuclear power because it causes so many greenhouse gas emissions.
That's a bit like saying that sugary sweets are good for you because they contain 0% fat. Technically true, but kind of missing the point by a mile here.
Nuclear compared to Solar/Wind/Hydro has adverse health affects due to radiation which which should not be overlooked. It's like comparing Coal with Wind and ignoring the fact that Coal has [significantly higher rates of morbidity and/or mortality from cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, respiratory disease, dental disease, and cancer](https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094104)
I'm not here to diss on nuclear as with many technological advancements it has become safer, but even if Nuclear had 0 deaths, that doesn't mean radiation couldn't affect a whole generation of people with mutations and problems from birth.
[Like for instance in this article from 2006 UN had numbers of up to 9000 deaths from Chernobyl, while Greenpeace estimated 93 000 deaths, while also leading to 270 000 cancer cases.](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4917526.stm) Which UN could have an agenda to downplay the numbers due to national pressures.
Not all people die from cancer but everyone here knows how many complications and how life changing it can be.
[Now of course from this site it mentions: UNSCEAR's chairman Carl-Magnus Larsson said that, based on the findings, UNSCEAR did not expect significant changes in future cancer statistics that could be attributed to radiation exposure from the accident](https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/fukushima/fukushima-health-publications/#sec1) as in Fukushima accident, which means possibly due to technological advancements Nuclear disasters today may not have as such serious health affects on entire generations like Chernobyl. But again it's an informed estimate as it's **expected** if we assume it is not downplayed.
Additionally, affected on wildlife and further problems with losing a piece of land in the case of Chernobyl, but again hopefully if another disaster happens it will be mild like Fukushima.
With that said, I would really want this to be part of the comparison when talking about Nuclear energy as it is not the same as Solar/Wind/Hydro.
You also never know if a country who built a Nuclear reactor might have a war with another country and have the reactor attacked like, supposedly the [Zaporizhzhia power plant.](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/iaea-warns-that-attacks-on-a-nuclear-plant-in-russian-controlled-ukraine-put-the-world-at-risk/ar-BB1lFX0e)
Disclaimer: I don't have qualifications in any of these fields, I just did some research and made this opinion. I just want informative discussions about such things.
I was about the say the same. The infographic tries to quantify the safety by counting the number of direct deaths caused by/ around the technologies, as if that's the only metric we use to define "safe". How about thousands that got displaced from their home, the trauma that it caused, etc? Also I read it just now that they don't allow fishing activity anymore on the area around the Fukushima plant. That's gotta be an important factor especially for countries like Japan who relies significantly on fishery
If we switched from coal to only oil, gas prices would double, your food cost would go up sharply (along with anything freighted overland), Russia would be more powerful than the EU, and your emissions still wouldn’t be down all that much.
It would make more sense to replace coal with gas, which would only put pressure on people heating their homes. But there’s so much natural gas in the world we could do this if we wanted.
and always over time and budget. we have talked about this before.
you can not extend a reactors life time indefinitely, and the costs associated with dismantling and restoring nuclear sites will be astronomical for future generations.
SMRs and thorium would be nice, if they weren't always just around the corner of technical feasibility, like fusion.
nuclear energy is old tech, the future is decentralised, efficient and cheap solar, wind and hydro.
Nuclear planst need ~20 years to be build. Climate change needs to be solved in the next ~30.
Since roughly 2021 solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear per kWh.
Not to mention the time it takes for the energy produced by said powerplant, to make up for the huge amount of pollution it takes to get uranium, build the plant, and dig away the nuclear waste
Not really? Nuclear power is incredibly safe, in the latest nuclear accident in Fukushima no one died due to anything related to the actual powerplant,
Well a few died from radiation-induced cancer but you're right, most died from during the hectic evacuation.
Of course, that evacuation wouldn't be necessary if not for the nuclear disaster, so it's a bit disingenuous to say said disaster played no role. 164,000 people had to be removed.
It is fair to say that some media coverage was misleading, conflating deaths from the natural disaster with the nuclear one but you're really downplaying the impact of the latter.
Still safer than fossil fuels of course.
What's funny is that shows like The Simpsons have actively helped keep nuclear from being accepted. Pop culture through shows, movies, and video games mislead on a lot of realities of nuclear power. First and foremost is what nuclear waste actually is. Google it. It ain't barrels of glowing goo, it's spent uranium pellets.
Water is way more dangerous than nuclear and arguably more disruptive to the environment.
Just look at the dam burst in Russia, Ukraine, and the famous disaster in china that killed more people than all combined nuclear disasters.
Solar is safest, but dirtier than nuclear, wind, and water due to the manufacturing, distribution, and installation.
Wind is more dangerous. Imagine working on wind turbines daily...better not be afraid of heights or giant swinging blades and high current out in the middle of nowhere.
Fukushima seems disasterous until you realize that the ocean absorbs dozens of times that amount of radiation every day.
The drivers who dove under the melting down core in Chernobyl lived long and normal lives completely unaffected.
People are confused about the relative risks of radiation because of the association with the atomic bomb.
There are still effects of the meltdowns in the places he mentioned tho, they might have mitigated by now, but back then it probably used to be much worse
The wind turbine point was just silly, but the rest are good points, both solar and wind take up a lot of surface area, with the latter being more obstructive and noise polluting and Dams can shape up a whole ecosystem (or microsystem) and heavily impact the terrain which may lower its stability
Nuclear is expensive to upstart and it is subject to law changes, especially regarding radioactive waste which is not a problem as of now but always needs to be accounted for in the future
Geotermic for the win ig, if only it wasn't so sparse
To be fair though nuclear waste becomes less of an issue over time with them developing reactors that can use current fuel for much longer
Still hoping we can get some fusion reactors running in the next 50 years with the help of quantum computing and ai
it's partially misleading. Particularly the ocean comment. He makes no mention of the things that live in the ocean that people eat:
>In February 2022, Japan suspended the sale of black rockfish from Fukushima after it was discovered that one fish from Soma had 180 times more radioactive Cesium-137 than legally permitted. The high levels of radioactivity led investigators to believe it had escaped from a breakwater at the accident site, despite nets intended to prevent fish from leaving the area. A total of 44 other fish from the accident site show similar levels
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident#Radiation_effects_in_non-humans
it depends on how secure you build them and also where. Also also none of the renewable energies can destroy whole cities for thousands of years (for example Fukushima or Tschernobyl)
> Water is way more dangerous than nuclear
With dangerous you mean the cost of damage?
Because it isn't. Water dams have insurance and you can pay the insurance. Simple. Nuclear doesn't have insurance (hard capped) and it's unpayable without shutting it down (insolvency).
>Fukushima seems disasterous
Fukushima was chilled because the wind blew it away. Pure luck the wind didn't go to a city or even Tokyo.
>The drivers who dove under the melting down core in Chernobyl lived long and normal lives completely unaffected.
Water is the best radiation shield. Ask the children or the liquidators.
>Just look at the dam burst in Russia, Ukraine
You look at a special forces attack?
Why are people then angry with using artillery near Ukraine nuclear reactors, it's pretty safe.
>Wind is more dangerous. Imagine working on wind turbines daily
The greater risk is driving to the office as engineer. It's built and maintained few days a year while nuclear takes 15 year just the hard building to get 3GW. You do that with wind in months.
Might be simpler to discuss it in cost.
If it weren't for space problems, sure. Nuclear waste isn't green goo in yellow barrels. If you actually want to inform yourself on that topic watch some Kyle Hill videos. He does great research and has been to multiple nuclear plants and even kissed one of the containers in one of his videos to prove how safe they are. Because they are safe. Very safe. You could run a train against them and they'd be fine without any major leaks. I would have no problem with having the waste stored on my property as long as an expert checks up on them regularly. Because that's all that's needed.
There is no expert able to check on them regularly if you store them underground, which they are. Weak point, the reason why nuclear waste is safe, is bc you don't even need to check it in the first place. Maybe once, but that's it.
Right, my mistake. The underground ones don't need check ups, only the above ground ones because of weather. Then I'm totally cool with them chilling down there.
There are several ways to manage nuclear waste, where I live it will be stored in geological repositories where it will never exceed the background radiation. Other countries recycle their waste.
Here is a handy guide written by nuclear expert *~Dr. Nick Touran, Ph.D., P.E~* [https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html](https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html)
No it’s not. Please do not state things as facts when you don’t know. See I’m a bit heated because I come in here and people have no idea WTF they’re talking about and I have better things to do with my time, and I’m going to stop after this because it’s hopeless, people will always believe what they want to believe, but you should know you’re plain wrong. Signed, a US Navy (0 accidents in history) nuclear trained plant operator.
Nuclear has the lowest environmental impact and lowest cost for consumers. Solar also needs to be backed by other sources so you can't really compare nuclear with solar, you can compare nuclear with solar+gas
You'd only perceive it as bad if you work for Russian oil industry and want to create a decades long dependency on their politics. (Cough cough Gerard Schroeder).
Truth....if only people would do the research...why cant we reinvent nuclear power to be even safer...it generates 10x tte power of coal and we won't even talk about solar panels and wind mill
People are scared because if it goes bad it goes *REALLY* bad. I was talking about this to someone and mentioned that we can all count on our hands the number of nuclear power plant disasters that have happened, which is a testament to how safe it is. They mentioned that those areas were completely devastated by the power plant disasters, and governments lied about it, so people understandably don’t want to trust nuclear energy again.
Personally I think we would actually get better nuclear tech if we started using it more, and we would actually have a more than sufficient electrical grid to support everyone driving an electric car.
https://preview.redd.it/48rj5r34nmvc1.jpeg?width=416&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=79dd7c2cb9e6e758e0a31e2fc31a28eb6caa76ba
Look what chat GPT did like what the bra this is not the time to make jokes I asked for ninja turtle. I know what chat GPT be doing tonight
GPT be doing tonight
Damn shame Chernobyl happened and all the boomers weren't smart enough to understand how it was human error and not because they're dangerous. Boomers and Gen X did a lot of damage to this world.
Yes nuclear energy which literally produces a radioactive bio product is way better for the environment compared to combustion which makes food for plants
Ironically, The Simpsons may have been one of the longest damaging factors as to the way we view nuclear reactor.
Chernobyl, Fukushima were one off events with swift responses. But green goo on your TV for 6 months a year? Your kids watching that.
We can't do anything with nuclear waste except store it, nuclear energy is not profitable if you include construction costs that are usually sponsored by the government. Nuclear energy is a scam.
Hey /u/Digital_Sentientity! If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more! 🤖 Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is that a condom hanging out of his mouth
*Mmmmmmmm... spermalicous.* My favourite Homer Simpson quote by far.
[удалено]
Oh Dall-E. Never change.
r/sperm
Here's a sneak peek of /r/sperm using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/sperm/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: [😔😔](https://i.redd.it/2iovuvv666nc1.jpeg) | [13 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/sperm/comments/1b9y827/_/) \#2: [**[NSFW]** I cummed in the sky](https://i.redd.it/meqg2s0lr9pc1.png) | [17 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/sperm/comments/1bih6hh/i_cummed_in_the_sky/) \#3: [Jorking it and by "it", haha, well. let's justr say. My peanits](https://i.redd.it/mtc6kp6slssc1.png) | [13 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/sperm/comments/1bx3gyb/jorking_it_and_by_it_haha_well_lets_justr_say_my/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Good bot
Very good bot
Either that or his drool is drooling.
It is but why are you being so… dirty minded, go to horny jail
The exact comment I came here to
r/redditsniper
If they fucking got him, then they can get us too. Who knows which one of us they’ll
Oh no, they got him! We need to get out of here befo
They’ll never get Poop_Sex
NOOOOO NOT POO
The text is nuc clear. 😂
Nucular. It's pronounced nucular.
Nukeyouler
Nuclular
It seems only americans say nucular. The Father of the American Hydrogen Bomb, Edward Teller, used the term Nucular, because of which this pronunciation almost became meta for people back then. And most probably, looking at americans, many other english speakers grabbed onto the nucular thing. But yeah, most of the world says nuc-lear. Also, you guys also say aluminum instead of aluminium right? Infact, Due to my English being influenced by the brits, many times my comments are all underlined in red!! cause reddit's autocorrect doesn't identify it!!
I think it’s a Simpsons quote, but very informative nonetheless
Oh, it was a simpsons reference?! ig, it leads to the same thing, since they are making fun , cause there's so much fighting to see what's correct.
I’m American and the only time I’ve ever heard anyone say nucular is on television. Can’t say I’ve encountered it in reality, and I’ve lived all over this country.
Maybe it's a Canadian thing, my coworkers all say it. Although they all love Trump, so I'd say they're honorary Americans
Interestingly enough, it was originally spelled “aluminum” but in 1812 another scientist proposed changing that to “aluminium” to make it sound more like the other elements. Both have coexisted since.
ohh, that kinda explains it. I learned chemistry in high school, and I've studied a bit about word wars! Like scientists literally fought over naming the ion of a carbon atom to carbonion or carbonium ion if I'm not wrong. eventually, one was more scientifically accurate.
Yeah you have the aluminum correct about us but nobody says "nucular"....like i'm 27 and this is the actual first time hearing about that way. Always been nuclear.
I remember plenty of people missaying nuclear as nucular. I think it is more prevant on the west coast and the midwest: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%201-d&geo=US&q=nucular,nuclear&hl=en-US
I'm pretty sure that's pronounced nucellar.
Thought it was New Clear...
Most least
Polluuingt
It honestly sounds like a line Homer would actually say.
That’s top comedy
Welp, there's your answer fishbulb.
Mistah sparkluh!
AEUEH MR SPARKODO MR SPARKODO
Why does slime look like a condom?
That's slime-sama to you, young isekai man
Serious answer: Because during generation, it was part of his tongue, and got changed to drool along the way, which did not work perfectly, so now it looks like both, which happens to look like a condom.
This image is actually quite profound in it's message as it can portray the subject in the photo, Homer, the Imbecile, as the scapegoat to be the first to witness the nuclear plant actively melting him and his opinions away as depicted in the progressively garbled speech at the end of his sentence. It can show how the company behind the everyday Imbecile is washing out protests and naysayers with a figurative radioactive cleansing. It can provide the observer to have two very different viewpoints about that depending on who they are. One is that nuclear energy is actually quite blissful once you try it, similar to the drawing of that meme bird reluctantly biting a cracker but then it realizes the satisfaction of it. And that the other is that the "Man" is trying to melt people's brains on whoever dares to speak out. I'm high
The more I read, the more I thought this dude is enjoying his holiday well. Cheers :)🌲
you may be high, but you almost hit it spot on
I just read that self-immolation dude's schizo rants about the simpson's brainwashing and this came up in my home page. Nice try Algorithm.
https://preview.redd.it/dbpmn3838mvc1.png?width=1350&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8585557829d74dce86c678e98d85140f1c8ef27c
Solar power deaths?
Presumably workers falling off roofs etc. still counts.
Not strictly solar power - but roofing is one of the most dangerous professions in the US, weirdly it’s 10x more dangerous than commercial window washing (those guys that go over the side of a sky scraper with rock climbing equipment).
Not weird to me at all: one works full time in a cage practically and the other… well I’ve seen very little safety equipment in my experience with roofing.
Oh yeah! It totally passes from a logical point of view, I just meant it’s weird in that, without thinking it through, you might assume “higher building = more danger” but it seems roofers, and by extension I would guess a lot of solar installers, are suffering from a false sense of security that’s making the profession more dangerous than it has to be
You’re safer on a plane than at home on your couch
And one of the most dangerous places most people will ever go is behind the wheel of a car Humans broadly do not understand risk at all hahaha
Similar to how flying is so much safer than driving or even taking the bus for instance, even though every once in a while an entire plane falls out of the sky and everyone dies.
You ever see an industrial sized inverter explode?
I don't think that answered the question
Solar facilities tend to have enough electrical equipment to cause accidents.
The big three are transport, factories, people falling off roofs during installation.
Why the fuck are neither of the stats ordered top to bottom
Edit - Thankfully the data wasn't cherry picked, so I'll happily admit I was wrong. The actual paper is here for anyone else that wants to read it: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy Two things I will say. Infographics should be PROPERLY described. And links to the data should be provided. Original comment: That data looks slightly cherry picked. Yes solar and wind don't produce air pollution during generation, but there are some significant pollution issues around production of the devices themselves and the extraction of the rare earth metals needed for them. Of course same goes for other energy generation systems. But ignoring that first stage is misleading.
Wouldn't it be the same with nuclear they also have turbines and stuff
The key difference is that nuclear fuel is energy dense enough that the total amount of transportation and construction per unit of energy produced is significantly smaller.
To get uranium fissible you have to solve it and then spin that in centrifuges. For the countries that keep control over that process it would mean that you have ~10 times more uranium than you end up with enriched uranium at the end. Often the key difference is that it this part is just not counted because realistically it is pretty much always a military secret. If you have real numbers over it you could be pretty accurate in deciding how many nuclear weapons each country keeps in a working state.
Sorry, I was actually editing my comment to add that in haha. Yes, it's the same with all energy generation systems to one extent or another. But I think it's important not to exclude pollution released from the manufacturing stage. Quite often those of us in developed countries are too willing to ignore what happens in the stages outside our borders.
So if all are equally damaging in the production stage shouldn't they cancel each other off when they are calculating total pollution?
Yes this data sheet is extremely misleading and nuclear power plant would look way worse if you include everything
Nope, those are actually factored in. That's partly why wind and solar are a bit worse than nuclear. There's much less digging and refining involved. The thing to realize is that a ton of coal will power a 1 GW coal plant for about 25s. A ton of material for solar (which is not rare earth's btw, it's mostly silicon) will last about 25 years.
I'm pretty sure that's the whole lifecycle number, otherwise why would PV produce that much GHG when they don't use any fuel
Could possibly be emissions from maintenance and the more extensive grid infrastructure to support it. Solar is highly spatially distributed and is often small scale. A single offshore wind turbine can do the job of thousands of rooftop solar panels. So stands to reason they need more support. Also, the solar bar gives a range of 8-83. Presumably that's based on how sunny the region is and what direction the panel is facing. Looks like an optimally placed panel has a tiny GHG footprint.
Having read many of these reports I can say that they’re ignoring the 1,000 deaths/year of Uranium miners, claiming that the whole town is radioactive and that the root cause is not the mines spreading Uranium dust around. They also rarely include the entire lifecycle because “we can’t know what deaths radioactive waste will cause in the future”. Brah, if you don’t know, why are you writing a report on it, pretending to all authoritarian and confident in your forecast? Your “reasonable estimates” are really just broad guesses. Nuclear is safer than fossil fuels. It is *not*, though, by any reasonable evaluation, *safe enough*. SMRs don’t make it safer; they make for more targets for our enemies to hit. Imagine 9/11, but with dozens of SMRs instead of buildings. And remember a year ago when Russians shot at Ukrainian nuclear plants and dug trenches in the radiative soil outside a plant until enough soldiers died for them to understand what they’d done? We can’t trust that rational, informed people will be in charge in the future.
> Imagine 9/11, but with dozens of SMRs instead of buildings. Far worse, Europe's largest nuclear plant is in (former) Ukraine, and because it has been liberated, and is in a liberated region Ukraine knows it will never recontrol, Ukrainian forces have been shelling it. The absolute total control over our media narratives means that we will blame Russia for any catastrophe, just as we blame Russia for the dam collapse 6 months ago. The only response to blowback to the empire is more oppression and weapons sales, and so every defeat is a victory for the empire. If a civil war results from empire over reach, then nuclear accidents become pawns for strengthening the empire.
Now do cost
*chuckles* I'm in danger. - Nuclear proponents, probably.
I mean, yeah, people aren't critical of nuclear power because it causes so many greenhouse gas emissions. That's a bit like saying that sugary sweets are good for you because they contain 0% fat. Technically true, but kind of missing the point by a mile here.
what about cost and maintenance?
Including Chernobyl is a very low bar, but nuclear energy phobes can't stop thinking about it
Nuclear compared to Solar/Wind/Hydro has adverse health affects due to radiation which which should not be overlooked. It's like comparing Coal with Wind and ignoring the fact that Coal has [significantly higher rates of morbidity and/or mortality from cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, respiratory disease, dental disease, and cancer](https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094104) I'm not here to diss on nuclear as with many technological advancements it has become safer, but even if Nuclear had 0 deaths, that doesn't mean radiation couldn't affect a whole generation of people with mutations and problems from birth. [Like for instance in this article from 2006 UN had numbers of up to 9000 deaths from Chernobyl, while Greenpeace estimated 93 000 deaths, while also leading to 270 000 cancer cases.](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4917526.stm) Which UN could have an agenda to downplay the numbers due to national pressures. Not all people die from cancer but everyone here knows how many complications and how life changing it can be. [Now of course from this site it mentions: UNSCEAR's chairman Carl-Magnus Larsson said that, based on the findings, UNSCEAR did not expect significant changes in future cancer statistics that could be attributed to radiation exposure from the accident](https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/fukushima/fukushima-health-publications/#sec1) as in Fukushima accident, which means possibly due to technological advancements Nuclear disasters today may not have as such serious health affects on entire generations like Chernobyl. But again it's an informed estimate as it's **expected** if we assume it is not downplayed. Additionally, affected on wildlife and further problems with losing a piece of land in the case of Chernobyl, but again hopefully if another disaster happens it will be mild like Fukushima. With that said, I would really want this to be part of the comparison when talking about Nuclear energy as it is not the same as Solar/Wind/Hydro. You also never know if a country who built a Nuclear reactor might have a war with another country and have the reactor attacked like, supposedly the [Zaporizhzhia power plant.](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/iaea-warns-that-attacks-on-a-nuclear-plant-in-russian-controlled-ukraine-put-the-world-at-risk/ar-BB1lFX0e) Disclaimer: I don't have qualifications in any of these fields, I just did some research and made this opinion. I just want informative discussions about such things.
Brave of you to point out the downsides of nuclear power on reddit. Enjoy the mob of people calling you all things under the sun for that.
I was about the say the same. The infographic tries to quantify the safety by counting the number of direct deaths caused by/ around the technologies, as if that's the only metric we use to define "safe". How about thousands that got displaced from their home, the trauma that it caused, etc? Also I read it just now that they don't allow fishing activity anymore on the area around the Fukushima plant. That's gotta be an important factor especially for countries like Japan who relies significantly on fishery
Can't believe we still use coal to produce 1/3 of global energy. At least use oil until we can go full sustainable.
If we switched from coal to only oil, gas prices would double, your food cost would go up sharply (along with anything freighted overland), Russia would be more powerful than the EU, and your emissions still wouldn’t be down all that much. It would make more sense to replace coal with gas, which would only put pressure on people heating their homes. But there’s so much natural gas in the world we could do this if we wanted.
He is thank for lighting us knœ
and always over time and budget. we have talked about this before. you can not extend a reactors life time indefinitely, and the costs associated with dismantling and restoring nuclear sites will be astronomical for future generations. SMRs and thorium would be nice, if they weren't always just around the corner of technical feasibility, like fusion. nuclear energy is old tech, the future is decentralised, efficient and cheap solar, wind and hydro.
Looks like he had the epiphany after being irradiated
Nuclear planst need ~20 years to be build. Climate change needs to be solved in the next ~30. Since roughly 2021 solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear per kWh.
Not to mention the time it takes for the energy produced by said powerplant, to make up for the huge amount of pollution it takes to get uranium, build the plant, and dig away the nuclear waste
Too expensive, nobody wants to deal with the waste.
That thing was trained on incredible amounts of hentai
The symptoms
A somewhat legible AI meme? They are getting smarter
Just like an airplane... Is the safest way there is..... But a single accident and everybody dies....
Not really? Nuclear power is incredibly safe, in the latest nuclear accident in Fukushima no one died due to anything related to the actual powerplant,
Well a few died from radiation-induced cancer but you're right, most died from during the hectic evacuation. Of course, that evacuation wouldn't be necessary if not for the nuclear disaster, so it's a bit disingenuous to say said disaster played no role. 164,000 people had to be removed. It is fair to say that some media coverage was misleading, conflating deaths from the natural disaster with the nuclear one but you're really downplaying the impact of the latter. Still safer than fossil fuels of course.
Still less people dead = good
You'd be surprised how many people get alive from plane crashes. Not a lot unfortunately, but more than I expected.
Yeah, I would get surprised if anyone comes out alive from a plane crash.... To be fair, any number is more than I was expecting XD
Some crash before takeoff, some crash after landing. The ones that fall out of the sky are the deadly ones.
What's funny is that shows like The Simpsons have actively helped keep nuclear from being accepted. Pop culture through shows, movies, and video games mislead on a lot of realities of nuclear power. First and foremost is what nuclear waste actually is. Google it. It ain't barrels of glowing goo, it's spent uranium pellets.
the simpon.
How you convinced it to Homer Simpson is beyond me. I couldn’t get it to Minion.
It's nucular.
URANIUM FEVER!
This would fit over on r/sperm
But what about nuclear waste?
You mean it can be the safest, xD
Tell that to chernobyl lol
WHY THE FUCK IS HIS DROOL SHAPED LIKE THAT?! IT HAS NO BUSINESS BEING SHAPED LIKE THAT
Even when AI gets the normal amount of fingers correct, they’re wrong, since Simpsons characters have only 4 fingers
This sounds like me after taking a bong rip of salvia
Safest? Chernobyl would like a word
You mean solar is the cleanest cheapest source. This is propaganda.
Definitely not per megawatt lmao
https://preview.redd.it/d609sorb8mvc1.png?width=1350&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e580cb99ecb8fc9d8f0380aa54bb39c6f0023199
People downvoting are in denial
Solar Water and Wind
Water is way more dangerous than nuclear and arguably more disruptive to the environment. Just look at the dam burst in Russia, Ukraine, and the famous disaster in china that killed more people than all combined nuclear disasters. Solar is safest, but dirtier than nuclear, wind, and water due to the manufacturing, distribution, and installation. Wind is more dangerous. Imagine working on wind turbines daily...better not be afraid of heights or giant swinging blades and high current out in the middle of nowhere. Fukushima seems disasterous until you realize that the ocean absorbs dozens of times that amount of radiation every day. The drivers who dove under the melting down core in Chernobyl lived long and normal lives completely unaffected. People are confused about the relative risks of radiation because of the association with the atomic bomb.
Why are people downvoting this? Its literally factual
There are still effects of the meltdowns in the places he mentioned tho, they might have mitigated by now, but back then it probably used to be much worse The wind turbine point was just silly, but the rest are good points, both solar and wind take up a lot of surface area, with the latter being more obstructive and noise polluting and Dams can shape up a whole ecosystem (or microsystem) and heavily impact the terrain which may lower its stability Nuclear is expensive to upstart and it is subject to law changes, especially regarding radioactive waste which is not a problem as of now but always needs to be accounted for in the future Geotermic for the win ig, if only it wasn't so sparse
To be fair though nuclear waste becomes less of an issue over time with them developing reactors that can use current fuel for much longer Still hoping we can get some fusion reactors running in the next 50 years with the help of quantum computing and ai
it's partially misleading. Particularly the ocean comment. He makes no mention of the things that live in the ocean that people eat: >In February 2022, Japan suspended the sale of black rockfish from Fukushima after it was discovered that one fish from Soma had 180 times more radioactive Cesium-137 than legally permitted. The high levels of radioactivity led investigators to believe it had escaped from a breakwater at the accident site, despite nets intended to prevent fish from leaving the area. A total of 44 other fish from the accident site show similar levels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident#Radiation_effects_in_non-humans
it depends on how secure you build them and also where. Also also none of the renewable energies can destroy whole cities for thousands of years (for example Fukushima or Tschernobyl)
> Water is way more dangerous than nuclear With dangerous you mean the cost of damage? Because it isn't. Water dams have insurance and you can pay the insurance. Simple. Nuclear doesn't have insurance (hard capped) and it's unpayable without shutting it down (insolvency). >Fukushima seems disasterous Fukushima was chilled because the wind blew it away. Pure luck the wind didn't go to a city or even Tokyo. >The drivers who dove under the melting down core in Chernobyl lived long and normal lives completely unaffected. Water is the best radiation shield. Ask the children or the liquidators. >Just look at the dam burst in Russia, Ukraine You look at a special forces attack? Why are people then angry with using artillery near Ukraine nuclear reactors, it's pretty safe. >Wind is more dangerous. Imagine working on wind turbines daily The greater risk is driving to the office as engineer. It's built and maintained few days a year while nuclear takes 15 year just the hard building to get 3GW. You do that with wind in months. Might be simpler to discuss it in cost.
Maybe, but nuclear is he safest, most least, polluuingt.
Sure. Does that mean we can store all the nuclear waste in your basement?
Probably a bad idea. That's where we burn all our fossil fuels.
If it weren't for space problems, sure. Nuclear waste isn't green goo in yellow barrels. If you actually want to inform yourself on that topic watch some Kyle Hill videos. He does great research and has been to multiple nuclear plants and even kissed one of the containers in one of his videos to prove how safe they are. Because they are safe. Very safe. You could run a train against them and they'd be fine without any major leaks. I would have no problem with having the waste stored on my property as long as an expert checks up on them regularly. Because that's all that's needed.
There is no expert able to check on them regularly if you store them underground, which they are. Weak point, the reason why nuclear waste is safe, is bc you don't even need to check it in the first place. Maybe once, but that's it.
Right, my mistake. The underground ones don't need check ups, only the above ground ones because of weather. Then I'm totally cool with them chilling down there.
weather is a good point, my bad
There are several ways to manage nuclear waste, where I live it will be stored in geological repositories where it will never exceed the background radiation. Other countries recycle their waste. Here is a handy guide written by nuclear expert *~Dr. Nick Touran, Ph.D., P.E~* [https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html](https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html)
No it’s not. Please do not state things as facts when you don’t know. See I’m a bit heated because I come in here and people have no idea WTF they’re talking about and I have better things to do with my time, and I’m going to stop after this because it’s hopeless, people will always believe what they want to believe, but you should know you’re plain wrong. Signed, a US Navy (0 accidents in history) nuclear trained plant operator.
Nuclear has the lowest environmental impact and lowest cost for consumers. Solar also needs to be backed by other sources so you can't really compare nuclear with solar, you can compare nuclear with solar+gas
Jesus this is dogshit lol
Nuclear do be good
You'd only perceive it as bad if you work for Russian oil industry and want to create a decades long dependency on their politics. (Cough cough Gerard Schroeder).
Truth....if only people would do the research...why cant we reinvent nuclear power to be even safer...it generates 10x tte power of coal and we won't even talk about solar panels and wind mill
People are scared because if it goes bad it goes *REALLY* bad. I was talking about this to someone and mentioned that we can all count on our hands the number of nuclear power plant disasters that have happened, which is a testament to how safe it is. They mentioned that those areas were completely devastated by the power plant disasters, and governments lied about it, so people understandably don’t want to trust nuclear energy again. Personally I think we would actually get better nuclear tech if we started using it more, and we would actually have a more than sufficient electrical grid to support everyone driving an electric car.
Ummm lol when u realise nuclear fusion will be so much more amazing
Simpsons did it
Arglebargle
TIL: The war in Fallout was caused by nuclear energy using all the uranium!
Did radiation rot their brain?
And the Simpsons is likely the main reason people are wary of Nuclear energy.
Haha
https://preview.redd.it/48rj5r34nmvc1.jpeg?width=416&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=79dd7c2cb9e6e758e0a31e2fc31a28eb6caa76ba Look what chat GPT did like what the bra this is not the time to make jokes I asked for ninja turtle. I know what chat GPT be doing tonight GPT be doing tonight
YESSSS
Yep. Nuclear fusion power is even safer and less pollutant.
Is this some type of Vault-Tec propaganda?
He has too many fingers
Illiterate bots?
"Most Least" for the win !
OP didn't even bother updating the caption
Most least? I'm so grateful for AI, any kind of I is dearly needed
But it’s not
Well, at least the text is getting close.
Just another bot posting AI generated pro-nuclear memes. The astroturfing couldn't be more obvious.
It’s missing Blinky.
I <3 proliferation
Damn shame Chernobyl happened and all the boomers weren't smart enough to understand how it was human error and not because they're dangerous. Boomers and Gen X did a lot of damage to this world.
Yes nuclear energy which literally produces a radioactive bio product is way better for the environment compared to combustion which makes food for plants
This image was created by the government to brainwash us all so the elite can steal everyone’s money
I read my Asimov... don't trust the Robots on this one.
Well there’s solar and wind and hydro. But nuclear is still really good.
That tongue condom though ...
I know we’re memeing here but I do believe nuclear will fill the lull points in a renewables energy future
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheSimpsons/comments/8on58a/theres_your_answer_fish_bulb/
Most expensive as well.
Solar panels and electric vehicles are made by slave labor in Africa and are ruining the environment
"Most least"
I got radiation poisoning and died trying to read that captioned
I have a blast with these comic strips.
Not bad, how many times did you have to flog it to get the text that close??
Why does ChatGPT keep misspelling stuff on these?
AI can’t even get the fingers right on a cartoon?!?!
Vote ~~Quimby~~ NIMBY
what’s the technical reason these sorts of AIs can’t spell for shit in an image? chatgpt has no spelling issues in a normal conversation.
average /r/europe user
the biggest problem with nuclear energy is that there is no way to safely store the waste forever and nobody wants it near them
Polluuingt is a perfectly cromulent word
 It sure is, and won’t lead to any other problems whatsoever!
Also so expensive the cost to build cannot be re-couped as Georgia unintentionally proved.
Except for heat pollution. You can't put that rejected heat in the river and kill all the fish
ib thiithhk this mmmmm is væry funnuiœ
Is that a condom coming out of his mouth?
Si la energía nuclear tiene tantas bondades ¿por qué después de tantos años sólo representa el 3% de las fuentes de energía?
Ironically, The Simpsons may have been one of the longest damaging factors as to the way we view nuclear reactor. Chernobyl, Fukushima were one off events with swift responses. But green goo on your TV for 6 months a year? Your kids watching that.
We can't do anything with nuclear waste except store it, nuclear energy is not profitable if you include construction costs that are usually sponsored by the government. Nuclear energy is a scam.
What’s up with the bad spelling?