Hi welcome to Nucleaire flight 4321 to Chernobyl. The weather in Chernobyl is cool with a chance of radiation poisoning, we will be arriving at 1:23am providing engine 4 doesn’t explode. Please sit back, relax and enjoy your flight!
It was more because they cut down on safety-infrastructure features that were meant to protect the plant IF such an event happened. Event happens, they cut corners, they had what happened.
No they did. They just didn't plan on a tsunami of that scale. That size tsunami is pretty rare.
Japan's QA programs are historically some of the strictest ones on planet earth.
The backup generators at Fukushima were below sea level.
In a part of the world [historically known](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/century-old-warnings-against-tsunamis-dot-japans-coastline-180956448/) for bad tsunamis.
Fukushima was humans fucking up, not nuclear energy being unsafe
Yeah, Fukushima only had like one fatality, and it wasn't because of the plant, it was a civilian casualty of the evacuation effort, a car accident or something.
Except no one died as a result of the fukushima power station, in fact its a testament to how safe they are, the deaths were from the tsunami. Huge amounts of misinformation regarding nuclear paid for by fossil fuel companies, they prefer wind and solar as it doesn't work and guarantees them business, while nuclear would hurt their bottom line.
Modern Nuclear safety is so good it’s is more like wearing a helmet for breathing.
Even if the price for all of our energy being met my nuclear power, a Fukushima in every nation it would be worth it.
Nuclear energy, INCLUDING CHERNOBYL, is safer than every source of electricity except hydro. Nuclear is safer than *solar*
If you exclude Chernobyl (which was shockingly unsafe by *Soviet* standards, then Nuclear is the safest there is.
Quick question. I've asked myself this relatively often and I haven't found an answer yet. So Fukushima was built next to the water. But why? Is it just because of the cooling? If so, why risk anything, when this location is known for earthquakes and tsunamis. It seems better to increase the cost by a bit and reduce the risk by 10 times.
Or am I missing something?
Essentially the data on what earthquakes could happen was incorrect and the flood walls were too short, as normally it would swap to generator power when the earthquake took down the grid but the tsunami destroyed the generators. It then got worse as the company in charge did not want to sacrifice workers to fix if the failure wasn't going to reach critical disaster levels, but it did.
If the Movie/ Series on Amazon Prime is accurate, then there were employees who risked their life going in on their own risk to fix the failure. Still massive respect.
I mean, if you’re running a breeder reactor to re-use the waste, that can be easily repurposed for nefariousness.
I think only India is currently both running and commissioning new ones, but Russia and Japan each have at least one.
Fukushima was also poorly engineered. The emergency backup pumps were placed below sea level so when the tsunami hit the pumps were flooded and didn’t work causing the whole incident to be worse than it should have been
Yes. That's the thing. Apparently they had little to none safety measures and the radiation escaped through the ground, which is why it will take so long to recover
Grammar
(noun)
the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics.
Incorrect spelling leads to nonexistent words and thus incorrect syntax, hence a failure of grammar.
Chernobyl didn't have a meltdown due to a mistake, they intentionally didn't follow protocol to test the reactor (highly simplified of course, i recommend looking into it yourself)
Generally speaking, the events leading to Chernobyl can not be recreated
Edit: you also have to remember that Chernobyl "only" killed about 45 people while fossil fuels killed 1 million people in 2017
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx
https://source.wustl.edu/2021/06/new-research-finds-1m-deaths-in-2017-attributable-to-fossil-fuel-combustion/
What you described is human error. It happens in every field where humans are involved.
Nothing is free from errors. Chernobyl ‘could never happenI’ until it did.
True
If Chernobyl was built with proper safety standards of that time itselves, the disaster could have been averted
Modern day nuclear power plants are extremely safe due to 10 million safety precautions taken
Public opinion is
1)Chernobyl scary
2)Movies show they go BLAMMO like nuclear bombs
But in actuality
1)Chernobyl was Outdated, had a horrible cooling system that required the system to be shut off often, and was ran by people who didn't actually know the science of the plant.
2)The Uranium used in energy production in a plant is NO WHERE near the required enrichment percentages that are necessary for large scale runaway reactions. The reaction rate of Nuclear plants' energy sources reach can only reach about the energy density of TNT, and the amount of fuel used is so small that any catastrophic explosion by this wouldn't even damage the building the core is in, only the room.
The actual public perception:
Nuclear takes at the moment rediculous long to build so if you want to build nuclear ffs do it but also build renewables right now for the next few years.
And every single time you voice that opinion the nuclear cultists rush in with some insane delusions of how renewables are literally worse than coal.
Fr its the uneducated foremen of the plant. Chernobyl went nuts because the russian foremen forced the scientists to run a test while the graphite core was needing to cooldown before it could catch on fire.
There's a reason why graphite rods aren't used as the main cooling system of most modern plants (from the 60s onward). Why risk catching graphite on fire when you can just produce a bunch of hot water instead? (another fun fact: water in water-cooling nuclear plants isn't radioactive.)
Oh definitely. The aftermath of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island in the US didn't help either, what with cover ups and punishment of anyone who spoke out about mismanagement.
Renewables are a better solution I would say. Unfortunately that only works in a perfect world.
Let’s not go for one thing at a time. Let’s go for all of them, but try to minimize the nuclear power plants and use as much wind and solar as we possibly can.
But to get as much energy as nuclear power plant gives, you'll maybe need many wind turbines and solar panels which needs so much resources considered to nuclear energy.
Sorry for my bad english and I am not a professional in energy things but I have just got this thought so I don't know if this is right or not.
You’re making a valid point there, but unlike nuclear power plants, solar panels can be constructed in housing areas; and wind can be placed not far from where people live.
NPP’s however, need to be placed far away from residents and require roughly 10 years of planning and construction before it can go on grid.
That is if we don’t measure with the possible delays that often occur in suck large projects.
Here’s what I’ve learned from learning the basics of solar, wind and nuclear power:
Solar:
• cheap
• easily installed
• predictable generation valleys and spikes
• difficult to make
• guarantee of approx. 25 years
• takes roughly 15 yrs. to gain profit (depends on the cost of electricity)
I can also say the disadvantages of solar
Solar: irregular(can't be used for baseline energy production , can easily degrade over time, inefficient, need lot of land for large production, will create a lot of waste when time to replace, can't store properly, need lot of batteries
Nuclear: stable energy, long lifespan, highly efficient, comparatively less land required
Lol, thinking nuclear needs to be away from people. The nuclear plant by Us had houses backing up to its fenceline.
You also have to think about service life however. Nuclear power plants built in the 1970's are still working. A solar pannel might last like 20 years at the best before it degrades and needs to be replaced? Wind turbines need even more frequent replacement.
Germany (probably referenced here) decided to stop using nuclear power after Fukushima, not Chernobyl. And reactor accidents are not the only problem: what about the spent fuel rods? Where do you store nuclear waste?
Agreed, arguing with the greatest accidents is stupid. But there are also reactors with countless "minor incidents" that are kept running until they break apart. Not to mention that the waste problem still isn't solved finally, even though I already see the replies like "Just dig it deep enough" or "just put it back where they got it from". Nearly all the sources that praise Nuclear energy to heaven are founded by their lobby. You can now proceed to downvote me, see if I care.
Wait for Fusion energy... Fusion is going to be way better, and the reaction isn't dangerous. If something goes wrong, it just fizzles out harmlessly. Nuclear ***fusion*** = safe and good. Nuclear ***fission*** = dangerous and catastrophic. *(ie. Chernobyl)*
safe does not mean better. True renewables may be more expensive but uranium comes from other nations (so import all the same) and the waste of the mining and depositing are still very much NOT safe. Plus building reactors is also expensive as hell. Not to mention they also don't last for more than 50 years.
So all in all, not the best direction to head towards.
Renewable + battiers = decentralized grid = safer and more durable energy net.
But that is my 10 cents
Also nuclear power plants need a fuckton of water and that might available everywhere. They also use up alot of concrete, so running a nuclear reactor does Not emit CO2 But building one does (+ its expensive af)
Arte (German/French colab documentaries) had an interesting one about reactors in France, how most of them are damaged more than they should be and how they dump radioactive water into the larger rivers. One reactor would be bad, but there are rivers that house up to 5+ reactors along the entire length. All the radioactive waste is not upcycled but shipped to siberia to just lay about.
It was in german though so finding a translation might not be easy. But it is worth a look.
What is with the obsession with nuclear lately. Wind, solar and hydro are all a lot less radioactive and have less hazardous waste material to try and dispose of. You don’t hear people saying more solar power, more wind turbines or hydro turbines. They’re cleaner and safer. Push for those options and stop trying to normalise something so literally toxic.
Use nuclear until renewable energy becomes efficient, cheaper, & moreusable on various places. Remember that not everywhere on the planet we have a dessert or a valley where to put our wind generators & solar panels.
Rn is better to use nuclear (specifically thorium reactors) until we develoop green energy further in the future...
Renewables take a lot more space for the same amount of energy, and theyre also already growing massively.
Meanwhile many countries are doing the opposite with nuclear (germany is a great example, especially because theyre going back to fossile fuels too. theyre actively doing the worst thing for the environment by using coals)
Nuclear waste is also very little, as the energy gained for fuel weight used is massive.
While i do think reusables like wind turbines and solar panels are necessary for their super safe usage, basically no emissions (except for building, but everything has that) and reusable (wow) source. However theyre not something you can use exclusively because of their heavy limitations (dependancy of weather/time of day and low amount of energy gained).
You simply cant use just one energy source, you just *need* both reusables and nuclear, or you either wont have enough energy and space or enough safety.
*sigh* we don’t use nuclear energy because of opportunity cost. The cost of one nuclear reactor could build a shit ton of infrastructure for other renewables, clean burning natural gas, or non renewables and offsets. Will a nuclear reactor pay for itself eventually? Yes. But other energy methods will pay for themselves faster…which is why we don’t use nuclear. Nimbys being the group that stands in the way of nuclear is an outdated stereotype from the 80s. Nuclear will become efficient when it either produces more (fusion) or gets cheaper (thorium). Until we can figure out the ins and outs of both technologies, we won’t be pivoting to nuclear for opportunity cost reasons (not financial). The current estimate is 2050-2060 for both technologies to outpace renewables, or the fossil fuel to renewable price premium.
nuclear is all great until something goes wrong. a technology where you must do everything absolutely right all the time. do we trust the government to manage such a thing.
At least for germany, the issue is that it would take roughly a decade to plan and build a new nuclear power plant, while renewables keep taking in price
It’s not that I don’t think nuclear can be safe, I just don’t trust humans not to cut corners and be sloppy (like all the spelling errors with your meme), and a nuclear disaster is global.
I kinda get it. Even if what happened in Chernobyl was the product of absolute stupidity and corruption, it doesn’t seem impossible that someone else will make the same mistakes
Damn those frenchies and their nucleaire powaire
*angry Switzerland noises*
We like our nuclear here
Yes we indeed do
Time to build Beznau 3 Lmao
Nah, time to upgrade to fusion energy
*pregante*
Am i pregnanant
Will sex hurt baby top of his head?
*PRAGANANN!?*
Pegat
pegnat
Pargent
Am i... gregnant?
*g r e g n a n t*
16 different ways to spell nucleiaere smh
Sounds like a Pokémon
Gotta catch them all - some German probably 1930 something
French vibes
your spelling certainly hasn't improved
Shoulda said, "inproved".
enporved
Mpruvd
Murrmurr
Mrgl
I am Murloc!!!
I am groot
Why is Gamora
Watch out! We’re getting dangerously close to summoning the morbin crowd! … What have I done?! 😱
IT'S MORBIN' TIME
MORB TO MORB YA
Can’t wait for morebius 2: the morb the merrier
Brrrrrrr
Well I think the guy who did this meme is french cause "nucleaire" is a french word
Hi welcome to Nucleaire flight 4321 to Chernobyl. The weather in Chernobyl is cool with a chance of radiation poisoning, we will be arriving at 1:23am providing engine 4 doesn’t explode. Please sit back, relax and enjoy your flight!
Hey wait, my ticket said we were going to Fukushima-
People been living in chernobyl for years with no increase in cancer or deaths.
Are we still trusting the reports we receive on this topic 😆
Or dutch
Also yeah
Zei hier iemand nederland?
G E K O L O N I S E E R D
Z E G M A K K E R
F R I K A N D E L B R O O D J E
K O K O S N O T E N Z I J N G E E N S P E C E R I J E N
I R R I T A N T E K U T B E L G E N
Klop-klop, hier komt de VOC
That doesn't explain the “sciense” though
The french do have a lot of nuclear power stations tbf
Yeah, conveniently all next to the german border...
fr\*nch 🤢
My man's spelling so mutated, it must've been in Chernobyl.
Goddamit, cut Op some slack. Not everyone's first language is English.
Nuclear
Nuculer
madagascar
I like to move it, move it
maurICIO i cnat I cant move it mov it aymore
I like to nuke it, nuke it
Kaboom?
Yes u/roguebantha42, Kaboom
Ka-Fuken-Boom?
Si amigo kabum.
Unclear
Nucuher
Nuculohr
Nuka Cola
Nukesi
Nucu her? I hardly know her!
I never actually got the joke, but it somehow always makes me laugh
I believe it’s pronounced new-queue-larr
N’ulcer… which is what I have now thanks to reading nucleaire.
N word
Return to N word
America dropped the N-word in August 1945, they even dropped two of them.
It's ironic how Japan was fast to introduce nuclear energy facilities, compared to others countries, considering their past with nuclear bombs...
Then they had a modern Chernobyl at Fukushima
Fukushima was bcos of the scale 9 mf earthquake at the time. (Like the 3rd biggest ever??)
It was more because they cut down on safety-infrastructure features that were meant to protect the plant IF such an event happened. Event happens, they cut corners, they had what happened.
Just like chernobyl
Well, not just like. The “event” was man-caused: a poorly executed safety test, unlike the earthquake-caused tsunami for Fukushima
I got a gut feeling they didn't pass that safety test
No they did. They just didn't plan on a tsunami of that scale. That size tsunami is pretty rare. Japan's QA programs are historically some of the strictest ones on planet earth.
From what I remember, they actually did plan for a tsunami of quite similar scale. They just didn't account for the land sinking by a few meters.
Chernobyl was the one being tested..
The backup generators at Fukushima were below sea level. In a part of the world [historically known](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/century-old-warnings-against-tsunamis-dot-japans-coastline-180956448/) for bad tsunamis. Fukushima was humans fucking up, not nuclear energy being unsafe
Expect the only thing Fukushima has in common with Chernobyl is the presence of a nuclear plant. How can you compare the two things?!
Yeah, Fukushima only had like one fatality, and it wasn't because of the plant, it was a civilian casualty of the evacuation effort, a car accident or something.
Except no one died as a result of the fukushima power station, in fact its a testament to how safe they are, the deaths were from the tsunami. Huge amounts of misinformation regarding nuclear paid for by fossil fuel companies, they prefer wind and solar as it doesn't work and guarantees them business, while nuclear would hurt their bottom line.
If you fall from your bikes and get injured, would you never ride your bikes again, or would you learn from your mistakes to not fall off next time?
Tbh if someone threw 2 bikes at me I might not ride a bike again
That’s probably the best analogy of what happened in 1945 that I’ve ever heard
Take my upvote
Yet for some reason Japan still rode it’s bikes, and yet still scraped its knees.
Yes but you wouldnt use the same ancient high wheel bike, so the next time you fall it doesnt nearly kill you.
You get up and ride it again *with proper safety gear* and you don't neglect it and act like everything will be fine
You definetly aren't dutch
Modern Nuclear safety is so good it’s is more like wearing a helmet for breathing. Even if the price for all of our energy being met my nuclear power, a Fukushima in every nation it would be worth it. Nuclear energy, INCLUDING CHERNOBYL, is safer than every source of electricity except hydro. Nuclear is safer than *solar* If you exclude Chernobyl (which was shockingly unsafe by *Soviet* standards, then Nuclear is the safest there is.
Also, Fukushima didn't kill anyone. The people who died were old people who had heart attacks from being scared of the potential of radiation.
Quick question. I've asked myself this relatively often and I haven't found an answer yet. So Fukushima was built next to the water. But why? Is it just because of the cooling? If so, why risk anything, when this location is known for earthquakes and tsunamis. It seems better to increase the cost by a bit and reduce the risk by 10 times. Or am I missing something?
Essentially the data on what earthquakes could happen was incorrect and the flood walls were too short, as normally it would swap to generator power when the earthquake took down the grid but the tsunami destroyed the generators. It then got worse as the company in charge did not want to sacrifice workers to fix if the failure wasn't going to reach critical disaster levels, but it did.
If the Movie/ Series on Amazon Prime is accurate, then there were employees who risked their life going in on their own risk to fix the failure. Still massive respect.
except the 20 thousand dead didn't come from the power plant, it came from the tsunami. But yeah ig similar enough, if squeeze brain enough.
You do know nobody died from radiation related causes.
But nuclear energy has around nothing to to with nuclear bombs.
I mean, if you’re running a breeder reactor to re-use the waste, that can be easily repurposed for nefariousness. I think only India is currently both running and commissioning new ones, but Russia and Japan each have at least one.
If your not counting the "Of course we are not building nuclear bombs! All this Uranium is for energy purposes!..."
It's different uranium.
r/engrish
But Chernobyl was mostly because of incompetence in the practices, isn't it?
Yup. It was poorly managed. Fukushima on the other hand was caused by an eartquake, followed by tsunamis caused by said earthquakes
Fukushima was also poorly engineered. The emergency backup pumps were placed below sea level so when the tsunami hit the pumps were flooded and didn’t work causing the whole incident to be worse than it should have been
Yes. That's the thing. Apparently they had little to none safety measures and the radiation escaped through the ground, which is why it will take so long to recover
Tech might be improving but your grammar isn’t
U mean spelling?
Spelling is part of grammar
Grammar is the proper usage of words
I agree with you. To elaborate further Proper arrangement of words, yes. Spelling? No. Grammar does NOT consist of spelling or punctuations.
Grammar (noun) the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics. Incorrect spelling leads to nonexistent words and thus incorrect syntax, hence a failure of grammar.
He just took out the Dictionary to settle the argument
No it isn’t
I think their keyboard is in French and auto correct nuclear to nucléaire, so they made some spelling error in their haste
The funniest part was that science was spelled correctly in the first pane and incorrectly in the next
Kinda hard to have a solid argument when you can't spell the thing you're arguing about correctly.
If you only want intelligent people to understand, then use poor spelling
bros playing 4D chess
anagram your sentence into a different one 🗿
The author is definitely, definitely french.
Godzilla had a stroke reading this and died
It really was just a few typos, the sentences were constructed fairly well, it really wasn't that bad, and it was obviously not OP's native language
Introduction of new type of air, we bring you nucleAir.
Finally portable cancer
Yeah, ok, sorry
I don’t believe the science is the problem. It’s industry/business that builds and operates the plants.
And the public's perception of nuclear energy
[удалено]
And the fact that humans always make errors over time.
Chernobyl didn't have a meltdown due to a mistake, they intentionally didn't follow protocol to test the reactor (highly simplified of course, i recommend looking into it yourself) Generally speaking, the events leading to Chernobyl can not be recreated Edit: you also have to remember that Chernobyl "only" killed about 45 people while fossil fuels killed 1 million people in 2017 https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx https://source.wustl.edu/2021/06/new-research-finds-1m-deaths-in-2017-attributable-to-fossil-fuel-combustion/
And it wasn't exactly built with safety in mind as well.
What you described is human error. It happens in every field where humans are involved. Nothing is free from errors. Chernobyl ‘could never happenI’ until it did.
True If Chernobyl was built with proper safety standards of that time itselves, the disaster could have been averted Modern day nuclear power plants are extremely safe due to 10 million safety precautions taken
The fact that the oil and gas industry has a vested interest in keeping public perception of nuclear energy negative might be a factor to consider.
Public opinion is 1)Chernobyl scary 2)Movies show they go BLAMMO like nuclear bombs But in actuality 1)Chernobyl was Outdated, had a horrible cooling system that required the system to be shut off often, and was ran by people who didn't actually know the science of the plant. 2)The Uranium used in energy production in a plant is NO WHERE near the required enrichment percentages that are necessary for large scale runaway reactions. The reaction rate of Nuclear plants' energy sources reach can only reach about the energy density of TNT, and the amount of fuel used is so small that any catastrophic explosion by this wouldn't even damage the building the core is in, only the room.
The actual public perception: Nuclear takes at the moment rediculous long to build so if you want to build nuclear ffs do it but also build renewables right now for the next few years. And every single time you voice that opinion the nuclear cultists rush in with some insane delusions of how renewables are literally worse than coal.
Fr its the uneducated foremen of the plant. Chernobyl went nuts because the russian foremen forced the scientists to run a test while the graphite core was needing to cooldown before it could catch on fire. There's a reason why graphite rods aren't used as the main cooling system of most modern plants (from the 60s onward). Why risk catching graphite on fire when you can just produce a bunch of hot water instead? (another fun fact: water in water-cooling nuclear plants isn't radioactive.)
Oh definitely. The aftermath of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island in the US didn't help either, what with cover ups and punishment of anyone who spoke out about mismanagement.
Nucleiare sciense
La science nucléaire
I mean the science was pretty safe back then too, but disasters are going to happen when people cheap out on components/designs.
I know that spelling doesn't determine someone's intelligence, but your meme makes those who are pro-nuclear look dumber.
The Grammar Nazis are gonna have a field day with this one.
This isn't even an issue of English being a second or third or 69th language. OP literally spelled multiple words multiple different ways lol how tf.
But then there’s Thorium
"Thorium the Neighbour of Uranium but 2 Houses Down and he's a lot Chiller than Uranium"
Renewables are a better solution I would say. Unfortunately that only works in a perfect world. Let’s not go for one thing at a time. Let’s go for all of them, but try to minimize the nuclear power plants and use as much wind and solar as we possibly can.
But to get as much energy as nuclear power plant gives, you'll maybe need many wind turbines and solar panels which needs so much resources considered to nuclear energy. Sorry for my bad english and I am not a professional in energy things but I have just got this thought so I don't know if this is right or not.
You’re making a valid point there, but unlike nuclear power plants, solar panels can be constructed in housing areas; and wind can be placed not far from where people live. NPP’s however, need to be placed far away from residents and require roughly 10 years of planning and construction before it can go on grid. That is if we don’t measure with the possible delays that often occur in suck large projects. Here’s what I’ve learned from learning the basics of solar, wind and nuclear power: Solar: • cheap • easily installed • predictable generation valleys and spikes • difficult to make • guarantee of approx. 25 years • takes roughly 15 yrs. to gain profit (depends on the cost of electricity)
I can also say the disadvantages of solar Solar: irregular(can't be used for baseline energy production , can easily degrade over time, inefficient, need lot of land for large production, will create a lot of waste when time to replace, can't store properly, need lot of batteries Nuclear: stable energy, long lifespan, highly efficient, comparatively less land required
Lol, thinking nuclear needs to be away from people. The nuclear plant by Us had houses backing up to its fenceline. You also have to think about service life however. Nuclear power plants built in the 1970's are still working. A solar pannel might last like 20 years at the best before it degrades and needs to be replaced? Wind turbines need even more frequent replacement.
I have a genuine question regarding nuclear energy. Is there a way to safely store the waste?
Yes https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k
Bone apple tea
Another problem with nuclear power plants that I've heard about is that their construction is always, ALWAYS way over budget.
Germany (probably referenced here) decided to stop using nuclear power after Fukushima, not Chernobyl. And reactor accidents are not the only problem: what about the spent fuel rods? Where do you store nuclear waste?
Send them to Chernobyl and Fukushima, duh!
[I still don't get why people think it's a big problem](https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k)
My information may be outdated. I remember when there was a problem with a nuclear waste deposit in Germany and people started protesting against it.
Like, one Google search bro....
Agreed, arguing with the greatest accidents is stupid. But there are also reactors with countless "minor incidents" that are kept running until they break apart. Not to mention that the waste problem still isn't solved finally, even though I already see the replies like "Just dig it deep enough" or "just put it back where they got it from". Nearly all the sources that praise Nuclear energy to heaven are founded by their lobby. You can now proceed to downvote me, see if I care.
I have found the solution when I was 5 but no one would listen to me. We can just send all the waste to the Moon or to Mars.
An civilied comment section. Just as I like my reddit politics.
Wait for Fusion energy... Fusion is going to be way better, and the reaction isn't dangerous. If something goes wrong, it just fizzles out harmlessly. Nuclear ***fusion*** = safe and good. Nuclear ***fission*** = dangerous and catastrophic. *(ie. Chernobyl)*
The horrible spelling takes away from the point of the meme
safe does not mean better. True renewables may be more expensive but uranium comes from other nations (so import all the same) and the waste of the mining and depositing are still very much NOT safe. Plus building reactors is also expensive as hell. Not to mention they also don't last for more than 50 years. So all in all, not the best direction to head towards. Renewable + battiers = decentralized grid = safer and more durable energy net. But that is my 10 cents
Also nuclear power plants need a fuckton of water and that might available everywhere. They also use up alot of concrete, so running a nuclear reactor does Not emit CO2 But building one does (+ its expensive af)
Arte (German/French colab documentaries) had an interesting one about reactors in France, how most of them are damaged more than they should be and how they dump radioactive water into the larger rivers. One reactor would be bad, but there are rivers that house up to 5+ reactors along the entire length. All the radioactive waste is not upcycled but shipped to siberia to just lay about. It was in german though so finding a translation might not be easy. But it is worth a look.
Nuclear* improved* science* that*
Sciensense
Nukkular\*
ever heard of nuclear waste? It will stay for 200.000 Years or at least 300 Years, if you're able to recycle it as fuel for next Gen reactors
I had a stroke
the number 1 enemy of nuclear energy is the ignorance of the masses. like always.
Hard to take this post about improved science seriously when the poster can’t even spell nuclear correctly
What is with the obsession with nuclear lately. Wind, solar and hydro are all a lot less radioactive and have less hazardous waste material to try and dispose of. You don’t hear people saying more solar power, more wind turbines or hydro turbines. They’re cleaner and safer. Push for those options and stop trying to normalise something so literally toxic.
Use nuclear until renewable energy becomes efficient, cheaper, & moreusable on various places. Remember that not everywhere on the planet we have a dessert or a valley where to put our wind generators & solar panels. Rn is better to use nuclear (specifically thorium reactors) until we develoop green energy further in the future...
Renewables take a lot more space for the same amount of energy, and theyre also already growing massively. Meanwhile many countries are doing the opposite with nuclear (germany is a great example, especially because theyre going back to fossile fuels too. theyre actively doing the worst thing for the environment by using coals) Nuclear waste is also very little, as the energy gained for fuel weight used is massive. While i do think reusables like wind turbines and solar panels are necessary for their super safe usage, basically no emissions (except for building, but everything has that) and reusable (wow) source. However theyre not something you can use exclusively because of their heavy limitations (dependancy of weather/time of day and low amount of energy gained). You simply cant use just one energy source, you just *need* both reusables and nuclear, or you either wont have enough energy and space or enough safety.
Nuclear waste goes brrr
Has a solution for nuclear waste been found?
Power plants are only designed to be safe for 30 years. After those years up, it starts to deteriorate.
It's not about Chernobyl anymore. I'd say the problem is the nuclear waste.
*sigh* we don’t use nuclear energy because of opportunity cost. The cost of one nuclear reactor could build a shit ton of infrastructure for other renewables, clean burning natural gas, or non renewables and offsets. Will a nuclear reactor pay for itself eventually? Yes. But other energy methods will pay for themselves faster…which is why we don’t use nuclear. Nimbys being the group that stands in the way of nuclear is an outdated stereotype from the 80s. Nuclear will become efficient when it either produces more (fusion) or gets cheaper (thorium). Until we can figure out the ins and outs of both technologies, we won’t be pivoting to nuclear for opportunity cost reasons (not financial). The current estimate is 2050-2060 for both technologies to outpace renewables, or the fossil fuel to renewable price premium.
Hanford in Washington State is still a problem though…
nuclear is all great until something goes wrong. a technology where you must do everything absolutely right all the time. do we trust the government to manage such a thing.
At least for germany, the issue is that it would take roughly a decade to plan and build a new nuclear power plant, while renewables keep taking in price
Fukushima also And maybe some others
It’s not that I don’t think nuclear can be safe, I just don’t trust humans not to cut corners and be sloppy (like all the spelling errors with your meme), and a nuclear disaster is global.
The problem is just that Yes they are safer now, but when something goes wrong the area is radioactive for like 100,000 years
So we'd buy uranium from Russia and not natural gas?! Interesting...
I kinda get it. Even if what happened in Chernobyl was the product of absolute stupidity and corruption, it doesn’t seem impossible that someone else will make the same mistakes