It has the least amount of deaths of ANY energy source we have per amount of power generated. That is if we assume the maximum amount of deaths from the nuclear accidents etc., if we assume more reasonable numbers there is no debate at all. And that comes on top of the extremely low CO2 emissions.
I always wondered if it wasn’t the Kremlin who pushed those anti nuclear agendas (I grew up in Sweden and eventually the “greens” wanted to dismantle nit only the nuclear power plants but also the army). They are never based in facts, only fear, and they helped Russia a lot with not only gas&oil exports but a lot of soft power coming with them.
It is the opposite. Nuclear shills don’t base their opinion on facts, they would rather hope for a miracle solution that is, when viewed rationally, complete nonsense. Apart from the extremely toxic waste for which we have not found geological structures stable enough to prevent it from leaking, building nuclear power plants is a really CO2-intensive process, especially with regard to all the concrete involved. The most pressing issue, however, is the fuel. What do you think nuclear reactors generate power with? Lots of air and goodwill? Entire regions have to be dug up for Uranium, of which useful isotopes then have to be enriched before they can be used economically in reactors. Furthermore, uranium is even less abundant in the Earth than oil and natural gas. If we would adopt nuclear power generation at large scale world-wide, we would deplete our scarce uranium probably in a few decades, long before oil. So we’re just substituting one problem for another with nuclear energy. It isn’t sustainable and renewable because at some point shortly after adoption, the fuel would run out.
What a trainwreck your post is, you’re saying CO2 costs for building a nuclear plant outweighs the CO2 fossil fuels would generate for the same amount if energy created, it’s like thinking you can bicycle to the moon.
But a couple of hundred thousand displaced people don’t count, of course. Also, there are no reliable statistics on fatalities because these are being systematically suppressed. I wonder why that is?
Well you’re the one claiming that this data has been suppressed.
We do have the data showing spikes in cancer after Chernobyl and data showing on-job deaths for pretty much every type of power plant. And that data shows that nuclear is the second safest energy per MWh generated, by far. With, apparently, solar being the first and wind at the third position. It’s not suppressed, it’s there and it’s pretty conclusive.
Since the 1990s—when the declassification of selected liquidator records prompted some direct participants to speak publicly—some with direct involvement in the liquidators’ cleanup efforts have asserted that several thousand liquidators died as a result of the cleanup.[23] Other organizations claim that total liquidator deaths as a result of the cleanup operation may number at least 6,000.
That’s a case specific to Chernobyl and Soviet Russia in general. We know they falsified a lot of data in many aspects, but that’s not “systemically suppressed” and definitely not something to generalise to every single nuclear power plant currently running in the world.
Thats total and utter bs. The cost of nuclear is insanely high, especially for storing. On top comes the “not in my backyard” situation which makes the most vulnerable people be the ones most affected. We are seeing days on 100% renewables. Its not that hard to understand.
What is BS? I never said anything about monetary cost. CO2 will cost SO absurdly much more than anything nuclear combined, I find it hard to care about it.
Pushing nuclear is bs. The nuclear lobby wants to make it look like there is only coal or nuclear. Reality is renewables are the only solution. Dont believe shit like this.
You said “it’s much safer” in your original comment, which you removed in the edit.
The source you’ve linked shows it’s marginally safer on a death per KW/h rate, true, while being substantially more expensive and comes with the unsolved problem of dealing with toxic waste.
It’s 25% safer, which is closer to “much” safer than “marginally” safer in my mind, but yes I decided it’s better to let the data speak for itself and avoid such subjective qualifiers.
It is more expensive, which is why I prefer wind and solar to nuclear, but we were talking about safety specifically, not which tech is “better overall”.
How many cubic feet of nuclear waste do you think there is? I’m curious. Cause currently, all of the waste America has EVER created, would fill 1 football field about 30 feet high.
Nice try lithium lobby! You just want to ride the current wave of the “green” trend. Maybe try harder with “made using recycled lithium” stickers on battery powered devices next time!
Pretty sure I saw news of the UK having 100% renewable energy days, and like a dozen US states believe it’s practical enough to have a roadmap …… and those aren’t the states with the highest wind potential
Edit …. And there’s California with 100 100% renewable energy days out of 144 analyzed
US is much more favorable for renewable energy than Germany, lots more wind, solar and hydro potential. How can we not be doing at least as well. There’s no technical reason. No practical reason. No economic reason. Just a bunch of gullible people manipulated by fossil fuel companies, a bunch of gullible people manipulated by outrage media, a bunch of gullible people manipulated by politicians. Idiots. All of them. Or evil
Yeah, I wasn’t trying to knock Germany. I’m German. But it’s far from 100%, we still have lot of coal (even worse, lignite) plants … and building more gas power plants. It’s just not an example if a 100% renewable country. Iceland was (but that got me downvoted, lol).
Anyway, it’s just lemmy. At least the debating about nuclear power doesn’t get you banned :S
As a resident of a US state with very little potential for renewable energy, we’ve been trying. Solar is gangbusters, but a few idiots keep blocking offshore wind and we’re at the mercy of other states for blocking us from building transmission lines to get some of that sweet Canadian hydro (probably just as well, given our current idiotic federal govt)
Yeah. I’m not gonna bother discussing this with you. Please start reading at get off of telegram and 4chan. I suggest wikipedia or other “mainstream” sources of information. Good bye
That damn nuclear lobby, shipping metric tons of uranium across the world on nuclear powered ships, digging, stripping, pumping every single ounce of nuclear fuel all across the world on land and at sea, with a complete disregard towards human beings and the environment, all for billions in yearly profit.
These damn nuclear power exporters, wagging war on each other to gain control of nuclear resources to build more and more nuclear power plants, corrupting governments, killing people, polluting the air and the water all over the world. Pitting people against one another on carbon free energy generation, distracting from the real issue of completely getting rid of nuclear power generation to keep the planet livable in the future.
Yeah, that goddamn nuclear power lobby and nuclear power itself are definitely the problem in the fight against climate change.
Trying to make it funny does not change the fact that it is total moral corruption to push nuclear. There are long and detailed lists why nuclear is not the solution. Among them is that statistically, chernobil definitely will happen again, and it did btw. Long term storage is insanely expensive and we already are approaching high levels of renewables. The time we need to build nuclear reactors, next to the materials make it all just a pipe dream to mentally divest from renewables.
Its the same disinformation as immigrants taking our jobs and homes. Nuclear still requires someone with far superior technology. Otherwise you risk mass death. Renewables are easy to operate.
Sure. Like from The Sun. We utilize that through photovoltaics and wind turbine generators. The wind is generated by uneven heating of the Earth by The Sun.
Of course, you’re talking about nuclear fission, not nuclear fusion. That’s what happens in a nuclear reactor.
The article is talking about nuclear waste. Fusion is not yet an established and actually working energy source, despite what disinformation campaigns are trying to tell you.
“Nuclear” currently describes nuclear fission, which is the only way of actually producing energy as of today.
Just going to point out most of these comments, including the original, are based on Chernobyl which was a reactor not built to standard and based older tech even during its time. I’m not against renewables, but a nuclear reactor is definitely better than a coal plant or natural gas plant in terms of energy production, safety (modern tech to today, stop thinking Chernobyl) CO2 production, and sustainability.
Fukushima was supposed to be better. It wasn’t. They weren’t an abandoned Soviet reactor, they were efficient, well-trained Japanese. 3 mile island was America. It can happen anywhere.
Don’t compare nuclear to coal. Nobody’s making new coal plants, and they sure wouldn’t have been replaced by a far more expensive nuclear plant.
You are against renewables. In the time it takes to design, build, and start operation of a nuclear plant, you could have made an entire factory to produce wind turbines or photovoltaics, and have been making product for years before the nuclear plant even opens. If they open, because most nuclear reactors don’t go online due to cost overruns, time overruns, construction problems, etc… Then they just sit there, a big concrete foundation making zero energy.
Your thinking is out of the 1970’s-80’s. Completely outdated by at least 50 years.
Well I tried. Seems like I’m getting a response from. someone who is offended at the idea of nuclear energy and now using feelings to make a statement. Fukushima was hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami and it didn’t go critical like Chernobyl. Again, renewables are a great idea until you have to scale in massive countries. This is why China has started up Thorium reactors and aggressively going after fusion. They have massive solar plants too! And yes, there are plans for idiots to start up new coal plants in the US, because they’re idiots.
Nice try, nuclear lobby. We still dont want your dirty tech instead of 100% renewables.
It has the least amount of deaths of ANY energy source we have per amount of power generated. That is if we assume the maximum amount of deaths from the nuclear accidents etc., if we assume more reasonable numbers there is no debate at all. And that comes on top of the extremely low CO2 emissions.
I always wondered if it wasn’t the Kremlin who pushed those anti nuclear agendas (I grew up in Sweden and eventually the “greens” wanted to dismantle nit only the nuclear power plants but also the army). They are never based in facts, only fear, and they helped Russia a lot with not only gas&oil exports but a lot of soft power coming with them.
/Thank you for coming to my conspiracy talk!
It is the opposite. Nuclear shills don’t base their opinion on facts, they would rather hope for a miracle solution that is, when viewed rationally, complete nonsense. Apart from the extremely toxic waste for which we have not found geological structures stable enough to prevent it from leaking, building nuclear power plants is a really CO2-intensive process, especially with regard to all the concrete involved. The most pressing issue, however, is the fuel. What do you think nuclear reactors generate power with? Lots of air and goodwill? Entire regions have to be dug up for Uranium, of which useful isotopes then have to be enriched before they can be used economically in reactors. Furthermore, uranium is even less abundant in the Earth than oil and natural gas. If we would adopt nuclear power generation at large scale world-wide, we would deplete our scarce uranium probably in a few decades, long before oil. So we’re just substituting one problem for another with nuclear energy. It isn’t sustainable and renewable because at some point shortly after adoption, the fuel would run out.
Tell me you don’t understand the energy density of nuclear fuel without telling me…
We also have centuries worth of uranium if it’s used for power generation, even if it was the main fuel.
Lol found the gas&oil shill!
What a trainwreck your post is, you’re saying CO2 costs for building a nuclear plant outweighs the CO2 fossil fuels would generate for the same amount if energy created, it’s like thinking you can bicycle to the moon.
But a couple of hundred thousand displaced people don’t count, of course. Also, there are no reliable statistics on fatalities because these are being systematically suppressed. I wonder why that is?
"There is no data to support my ideas, that’s definitely because everyone in the world is hiding and suppressing them "
Well, where are the data? Isn’t that a question that would be very much in the public interest to know about?
Well you’re the one claiming that this data has been suppressed.
We do have the data showing spikes in cancer after Chernobyl and data showing on-job deaths for pretty much every type of power plant. And that data shows that nuclear is the second safest energy per MWh generated, by far. With, apparently, solar being the first and wind at the third position. It’s not suppressed, it’s there and it’s pretty conclusive.
https://blog.ucs.org/lisbeth-gronlund/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated/
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh
From Wikipedia
That’s a case specific to Chernobyl and Soviet Russia in general. We know they falsified a lot of data in many aspects, but that’s not “systemically suppressed” and definitely not something to generalise to every single nuclear power plant currently running in the world.
deleted by creator
Thats total and utter bs. The cost of nuclear is insanely high, especially for storing. On top comes the “not in my backyard” situation which makes the most vulnerable people be the ones most affected. We are seeing days on 100% renewables. Its not that hard to understand.
What is BS? I never said anything about monetary cost. CO2 will cost SO absurdly much more than anything nuclear combined, I find it hard to care about it.
Pushing nuclear is bs. The nuclear lobby wants to make it look like there is only coal or nuclear. Reality is renewables are the only solution. Dont believe shit like this.
You’re saying nuclear power is responsible for less deaths and sicknesses than for example… wind?
Yes. Wind turbines maintenance is a dangerous job that sometimes results in injury or death. Nuclear power is safer, per kWh.
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
It’s not, a person has already provided a study proving you wrong.
Edit: You’ve changed your comment completely with that edit.
I provided a source, you said “it’s not”. Forgive me if I ignore your comment unless you also provide a source.
You said “it’s much safer” in your original comment, which you removed in the edit.
The source you’ve linked shows it’s marginally safer on a death per KW/h rate, true, while being substantially more expensive and comes with the unsolved problem of dealing with toxic waste.
It’s 25% safer, which is closer to “much” safer than “marginally” safer in my mind, but yes I decided it’s better to let the data speak for itself and avoid such subjective qualifiers.
It is more expensive, which is why I prefer wind and solar to nuclear, but we were talking about safety specifically, not which tech is “better overall”.
How many cubic feet of nuclear waste do you think there is? I’m curious. Cause currently, all of the waste America has EVER created, would fill 1 football field about 30 feet high.
It’s only doing slights better than wind.
Right so why shouldn’t we just use power sources where we don’t have an issue with massively toxic waste products later on in the process?
Edit: And which are also a lot cheaper.
Because of reliability and lack of storage options.
Pumped hydroelectric storage exists and is easily achieved. What about the storage options for nuclear waste?
Only if you have a mountain nearby, which not all places have.
We have those.
Not really, you can build hydroelectric storage facilities.
The nuclear storage facilities here in Germany are already being shut down because they’re in danger of leaking into the groundwater.
Haven’t you heard of all the people that get killed by feral solar panels every year?
Nice try petroleum and coal lobby, maybe try harder with the “clean coal” next time!
Nice try hydrogen lobby! You just want to perpetuate the production scarcity model. Maybe try harder with the “carbon credits” next time!
Nice try lithium lobby! You just want to ride the current wave of the “green” trend. Maybe try harder with “made using recycled lithium” stickers on battery powered devices next time!
Are you drunk? Countries are already having 100% renewable usage days.
Yeah, tiny countries with very favourable conditions like Iceland.
Pretty sure I saw news of the UK having 100% renewable energy days, and like a dozen US states believe it’s practical enough to have a roadmap …… and those aren’t the states with the highest wind potential
Edit …. And there’s California with 100 100% renewable energy days out of 144 analyzed
We have a disinformation campaign running in here. Dont get discouraged. Something really crazy is going on in this place.
Yeah, right. And the very favorable germany. Please get help.
If you think Germany is running on 100% renewables, you need help way more than I do.
59% over the entire year is a damn good start
US is much more favorable for renewable energy than Germany, lots more wind, solar and hydro potential. How can we not be doing at least as well. There’s no technical reason. No practical reason. No economic reason. Just a bunch of gullible people manipulated by fossil fuel companies, a bunch of gullible people manipulated by outrage media, a bunch of gullible people manipulated by politicians. Idiots. All of them. Or evil
Yeah, I wasn’t trying to knock Germany. I’m German. But it’s far from 100%, we still have lot of coal (even worse, lignite) plants … and building more gas power plants. It’s just not an example if a 100% renewable country. Iceland was (but that got me downvoted, lol).
Anyway, it’s just lemmy. At least the debating about nuclear power doesn’t get you banned :S
As a resident of a US state with very little potential for renewable energy, we’ve been trying. Solar is gangbusters, but a few idiots keep blocking offshore wind and we’re at the mercy of other states for blocking us from building transmission lines to get some of that sweet Canadian hydro (probably just as well, given our current idiotic federal govt)
Yeah. I’m not gonna bother discussing this with you. Please start reading at get off of telegram and 4chan. I suggest wikipedia or other “mainstream” sources of information. Good bye
You should take your own advice. It’s a pretty simple thing to look up.
That damn nuclear lobby, shipping metric tons of uranium across the world on nuclear powered ships, digging, stripping, pumping every single ounce of nuclear fuel all across the world on land and at sea, with a complete disregard towards human beings and the environment, all for billions in yearly profit.
These damn nuclear power exporters, wagging war on each other to gain control of nuclear resources to build more and more nuclear power plants, corrupting governments, killing people, polluting the air and the water all over the world. Pitting people against one another on carbon free energy generation, distracting from the real issue of completely getting rid of nuclear power generation to keep the planet livable in the future.
Yeah, that goddamn nuclear power lobby and nuclear power itself are definitely the problem in the fight against climate change.
Trying to make it funny does not change the fact that it is total moral corruption to push nuclear. There are long and detailed lists why nuclear is not the solution. Among them is that statistically, chernobil definitely will happen again, and it did btw. Long term storage is insanely expensive and we already are approaching high levels of renewables. The time we need to build nuclear reactors, next to the materials make it all just a pipe dream to mentally divest from renewables.
Its the same disinformation as immigrants taking our jobs and homes. Nuclear still requires someone with far superior technology. Otherwise you risk mass death. Renewables are easy to operate.
You realize the ultimate source of renewable energy is nuclear fusion?
Okay. Are you at school? Please ask your teacher to explain the difference between FUSION and FISSION.
Hey, you seem to be confused about their comment. Maybe ask YOUR teacher about reading comprehension.
Sure. Like from The Sun. We utilize that through photovoltaics and wind turbine generators. The wind is generated by uneven heating of the Earth by The Sun.
Of course, you’re talking about nuclear fission, not nuclear fusion. That’s what happens in a nuclear reactor.
Nincompoop.
Im talking about nuclear fusion not nuclear fission. But clearly youre here to troll and not actually have any understanding of the issues at hand
The article is talking about nuclear waste. Fusion is not yet an established and actually working energy source, despite what disinformation campaigns are trying to tell you.
“Nuclear” currently describes nuclear fission, which is the only way of actually producing energy as of today.
So YOU might mean fusion, but nobody else does.
Please go on about the morals of an inherently amoral tech.
Goof.
What?
Just as expected.
Just going to point out most of these comments, including the original, are based on Chernobyl which was a reactor not built to standard and based older tech even during its time. I’m not against renewables, but a nuclear reactor is definitely better than a coal plant or natural gas plant in terms of energy production, safety (modern tech to today, stop thinking Chernobyl) CO2 production, and sustainability.
Fukushima was supposed to be better. It wasn’t. They weren’t an abandoned Soviet reactor, they were efficient, well-trained Japanese. 3 mile island was America. It can happen anywhere.
Don’t compare nuclear to coal. Nobody’s making new coal plants, and they sure wouldn’t have been replaced by a far more expensive nuclear plant.
You are against renewables. In the time it takes to design, build, and start operation of a nuclear plant, you could have made an entire factory to produce wind turbines or photovoltaics, and have been making product for years before the nuclear plant even opens. If they open, because most nuclear reactors don’t go online due to cost overruns, time overruns, construction problems, etc… Then they just sit there, a big concrete foundation making zero energy.
Your thinking is out of the 1970’s-80’s. Completely outdated by at least 50 years.
Well I tried. Seems like I’m getting a response from. someone who is offended at the idea of nuclear energy and now using feelings to make a statement. Fukushima was hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami and it didn’t go critical like Chernobyl. Again, renewables are a great idea until you have to scale in massive countries. This is why China has started up Thorium reactors and aggressively going after fusion. They have massive solar plants too! And yes, there are plans for idiots to start up new coal plants in the US, because they’re idiots.
Fukushima shouldn’t have been built that close to a fault line and the ocean.
China is building coal plants
Yes daddy fill me with sweet coal, gas and lithium 🥵
The matrix happened because the machines used renewables thus the enemy eternally destroyed the atmosphere.
If the machines used nuclear energy they would have won.
God bless all intelligent forms