A lot of comments here are displaying their ignorance of nuclear technology.
Keep eating up the oil company talking points, I guess. “hey guys remember those nuclear meltdowns from outdated reactors that had all kinds of things going wrong because of poor design and decision making, most of which is no longer an issue? Yeah things blow up so better keep chugging away at those fossil fuels while we sabotage any investments into renewables”
I mean goddamn, the “worst” disaster in the USA was a big nothing burger that was sensationalized by newspapers that knew how to sell a headline, and oil companies that knew how to leverage any sort of negative press to their advantage.
When the fallout from nuclear disasters doesn’t come close to the amount of radiation out off by burning and refining fossil fuels, there is no argument.
Yeah things blow up
I would stop them right there and ask when the last oil spill was.
It was last month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills
The safety aspects alone SHOULD be enough to convince people, yet here we are.
The difference between nuclear-power- related disasters and fossil fuel related disasters is astronomical.
And honestly the amount of radioactive isotopes that get spewed out from burning coal day in day out for decades on end absolutely dwarfs the amount of radioactivity released from nuclear disasters.
one dangerous thing being less unsafe than another doesn’t make it safe.
And nobody suggested it did.
But the argument of “it’s more unsafe” doesn’t apply, that was my whole point.
If one thing is less unsafe than another, why the fuck WOULDN’T you want to switch the the DEMONSTRABLY LESS UNSAFE THING
yeah, decentralised photovoltaic- & -thermic cells, wind and river turbines, biomass.
Solar’s a little bit less killy than nuclear (people die when mining raw materials and from falling off rooftops when installing panels) and wind turbines are a little more dangerous than nuclear (mining raw materials, falls during installation/maintenance and people burning to death during maintenance), but hydroelectric power is much more dangerous than nuclear (mainly from drownings after dams burst). Until very recently, nuclear was the safest means of power generation by a wide margin, so if safety is the main concern, there should be a lot more of it.
A big reason for this is that a single nuclear power plant can power a city despite having the same footprint as a small village worth of wind turbines or solar panels and running for decades off a wheelbarrow of fuel, so there’s much less for construction workers and miners to do and fewer opportunities for them to die. It only kills when there’s an accident bad enough to make international news and remain in the public consciousness for decades, and accidents that bad have only happened a handful of times.
Biomass is not sustainable. You’ll cut your forests down to sate demand.
it was an intendendly brief answer. and of course the biomass that is a product of other processes is being used. we don’t have woods left in europe and forests are needed for wood production.
Why do you think that those against nuclear energy are for fossil fuels? My building has solar panels, and backup power comes from either wind turbines or the hydraulic dam down the river.
The overwhelming resistance to nuclear is pushed by people who want us to stay on fossil fuels, and the number of people suggesting renewables usally state their preferences in the comments alongside their criticism (whether the criticism is valid or not).
the “worst” disaster in the USA
The 3-Mile Island incident hit two weeks after The China Syndrome hit theaters. (A movie about a runaway nuclear meltdown.)
Otherwise the story would have been, "A tiny poof of radioactive steam got loose, everything was handled quickly and perfectly, no big deal, and back to you Tom (Brokaw).
Yep. So much of this shit from “environmental activists” that have no fucking clue how any of this works. It’s been shown time and time again that nuclear is the answer for base load energy requirements with minimal environmental impact.
These are two excellent videos by Kyle Hill, explaining where we are with nuclear power. They’re Invidious Links, because I block all trackers from Google, which means youtube doesn’t work for me. I put the titles beside the links in-case people want to search them up themselves. The War in Ukraine, The Far-right, the intolerance and the propaganda on social media. It’s because they want to push us to war. Electric cars, plus modern nuclear power means the end to the artificial energy crisis. Means the end to Petrostates like Russia, Saudi Arabia and what the US is fast turning into. The fossil fuel industry has suppressed this technology for the last 70 years. That is why they need us at war, because there are no electric tanks. Anyone who is skeptical about nuclear power, I urge you to watch these. I promise you, threatening Denmark over Greenland will make a lot more sense with this context.
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=BcoN2bdACGA Why Isn’t Thorium Changing the World?
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k We Solved Nuclear Waste Decades Ago
The fossil fuel industry has been suppressing all alternatives to fossil fuels. They have entire research departments that work on inventing green energy solutions and then they patent them and shelve them.
Thank you for the videos. The links didn’t work for me, though, so for anyone else for whom it doesn’t work, here are the links:
https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k
https://youtu.be/BcoN2bdACGA
Is there any source with any real information? This one is just bullshit.
Here’s a more measured take on it, particularly the Update section - though it’s written by the company creating the long-term waste repository in Switzerland so there’s some obvious bias.
It appears the modeling/simulation code Transmutex developed is heavily based on the open-source Geant4 toolkit.
You lost me at this:
For this transmutation Transmutex proposes using a particle accelerator, probably because the promoter of the idea is a former engineer at CERN,
Yeah it’s definitely not that the only reliable method we have of knocking protons off of atoms involves either a nuclear reactor or particle accelerator, dude is just bringing his old job with him cause he doesn’t know any better. Right.
Complete bullshit. Just enough of the basic tech checks out to fool an investor. They going to knock protons off thousands of pounds of nuclear waste and irradiated material? One atom at a time? Good thing there aren’t many atoms in things, It’ll only take a few hours at most, lol.
This’ll be used by people wanting to sell expensive, dangerous nuclear reactors. That still produce nuclear waste, and sometimes melt down to create global disasters. Instead of cheap, easy wind and solar.
This is just a scam, but like most scams, there’s some real, and some made-up information.
Sources. You need to back all of that up then compare it to fossil fuels and the damage to the environment they cause then shut the fuck up.
Oh look, another armchair expert going in about how nuclear is a waste of time and effort, literally using the same argument that oil companies have been using to keep nuclear away.
“oh it’s so sooper dooper dangerous, you should invest in renewables” lobbies the shit out of nations to keep wind and solar projects from taking off
deleted by creator
Don’t feed this troll.
Fucking gladly be blocked by someone who rambles like this.
