112
u/Iamfabulous1735285 Died of Ligma 2h ago
Nuclear fusion my beloved ^_^
→ More replies (8)66
u/fightin_blue_hens 2h ago edited 14m ago
Been 20 years away from it for the last 40 years. It will take multiple generational breakthroughs a year across all physical sciences to reach viable fusion reactors. I'm not holding my breath
42
u/quick20minadventure 1h ago
even if feasible, it won't ever be commercially viable at this point. Solar/Wind + storage + dynamic energy rates is unbeatable. Not because it is the future, but because it is already here.
11
u/Russian-8ias Dirt Is Beautiful 1h ago edited 16m ago
We have not figured out storage lol. I mean if we made rapid advances in the next decade then sure but right now it still lags behind nuclear fission. Nuclear is great at providing baseline power. So they're always on, always providing roughly the same amount of energy day to day. That might be around 70% of the energy consumed on a given grid. The rest is made up by a combination of hydrocarbons and renewables/stored energy. Obviously the goal is to eliminate all the hydrocarbons but that doesn't mean the best way is to use solar, wind, and hydro power for the majority of power needs.
It is absolutely commercially viable. Some of those costs are unreasonable amounts of red tape that has to be cleared (not saying it isn't dangerous but people are so paranoid that those costs balloon). Even with those costs it still makes perfect sense. Reactors built today will last many decades, perhaps more than a century, with refits every so often.
→ More replies (3)11
u/quick20minadventure 1h ago
Obviously the goal is to eliminate all the hydrocarbons but that doesn't mean the best way is to use solar, wind, and hydro power for the majority of power needs.
It is.
We have not figured out storage lol
Eh, Batteries?
Saying we haven't figured out storage just because it is not built, is like saying we haven't figured out nuclear power plants, because we haven't build them.
→ More replies (31)→ More replies (2)2
→ More replies (3)7
563
u/Ricktor_67 3h ago
Solar is. It's literally capturing free fusion energy that falls out of the sky all day long and panels last half a century.
275
u/IcyHibiscus 2h ago
The big problem with solar is the material cost has a pretty high resource burden. So while after it's been mined it's very clean it is an especially dirty process to get there.
57
u/SpaceBus1 2h ago
I forgot that nuclear plants don't require any resources!
6
12
u/h3lium-balloon 2h ago edited 1h ago
Modern plants can have a lifespan of over 60 years with minimal materials. With current technology, solar panels degrade and lose about 0.5% efficiency per year, but this is improving, as is overall efficiency. To be most effective, you also need to be able to store solar for times when sunlight is minimized, that means lots of very non-environmentally friendly batteries (or another form of power serving as a backstop).
We should be doing both, but nuclear could deliver much more, much cheaper power much more quickly.
If nuclear was heavily invested in now, by the time those plants were nearing end of life solar tech would likely be in a better place to largely replace or augment it.
14
u/Verungachungachunga 1h ago
Let's knock up some nuclear powerstations with minimal materials for some cheap, quick power.....hahahaha
Cheap, quick and minimal are not adjectives commonly associated with nuclear powerstation construction projects.
2
u/Special_Order-937 1h ago
Yes, this idea keeps floating up to the surface in Australia every so often and has to get gently let down for all those reasons. That plus we have a lot of space and a lot of sun for solar farms too.
7
13
22
u/Cookieopressor 1h ago
Nuclear produce much cheaper power much more quickly? It's gonna take a good decade to have a nuclear power plant up and running.
→ More replies (17)→ More replies (2)2
u/rainshowers_5_peace 48m ago
The waste lasts for so long it needs to be stored with pictures because it will outlive modern languages.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)3
8
u/Garchompisbestboi 1h ago
And where do you think the radioactive materials used to generate nuclear power come from exactly? The sky?
→ More replies (11)94
u/Horror_Cheesecake276 2h ago
Solar panels also have a pretty short life span
16
95
u/mysightisurs93 2h ago
In comparison to nuclear, yes. But to be fair, anything is.
66
u/Valtremors 1h ago
People why are we arguing about this?
We can have solar AND nuclear ideally.
17
u/IllegitimateRisk 1h ago
Is there a word for when people stalemate conversations with an inability to accept that two solutions can be beneficial and we don’t always have to stick with one forever? Because I see it all the time on here and it’s almost starting to look like a legit tactic to remove any sort of discourse about a topic.
→ More replies (5)8
u/Drudgework 1h ago
A false dichotomy. An argument falsely positing that only one answer among a given set can be true when either the correct answer is not presented or is more than one answer. Also known as a false binary or false dilemma. For examples of this bad faith argument see any debate about gun control in America.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)3
u/gut536 1h ago
Because there has been a lot of money spent on propaganda demonizing both, and many have fallen for one or the other.
Solar has far more potential than critics give it credit for, and nuclear is much safer than haters will have you believe.
You are right. Both should be leveraged alongside hydro and wind in order to replace fossil fuel based power.
→ More replies (2)21
u/Kiroho 1h ago
Well, that's only because nuclear power plants HAVE to run this long to be profitable. And even then, the power plants have to be maintenanced and upgrades nonstop during the whole lifetime.
4
u/godzillahavinastroke 1h ago edited 49m ago
You oversell the difficulty of this, the reason they have so much maintenance is they are ridiculously risky averse, and drag their feet in anything to make sure failure is impossible.
Even though modern reactors dont need that much upkeep, most of it is just keeping system pure enough, upgrades are not mandatory for stuff to work. They just are upgrades, and such people who want to reduce risks even more. Would ofc always go for em.
→ More replies (8)8
u/OffendedDefender 1h ago
Nuclear plants are designed for a lifespan of about 40 years before decommissioning or a significant overhaul. The lifespan of a solar panel is about 30 years before being recycled and replaced.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Johnny_Bizzle 1h ago
No it’s not. I install solar panels on the East Coast. 10 year life span.
7
u/window_owl 1h ago
Sounds like you got a terrible deal. Pretty much all installers in the USA offer 20- or 25-year warranties; the panels are usually rated to produce 80% of their original power when they're that old.
→ More replies (6)3
u/Anthrozil7 48m ago
Sounds like they are the one offering the terrible deal if they are an installer claiming 10y lifespans.
Or just unintelligent.
→ More replies (1)4
u/OffendedDefender 1h ago
The US Department of Energy states 25-35 years for current models. Considering the current administration’s view on renewable energy, they’re probably not bullshitting if this is still active on their website.
45
u/SirChadrick_III 1h ago
That's just a complete lie. Many companies will warranty their panels for decades, and even after that point, they still work. They just lose efficiency over time. That doesn't mean they become obsolete.
→ More replies (1)24
u/Kooky_Assistance2755 1h ago
And everything but the photovoltaics can easily be reused or recycled, that's like 99% of their mass
8
u/AthleticAndGeeky 1h ago
Yeah those solar panels they said would drop below 70% from 16 years ago are still operating at 90% plus don’t buy into the oil propaganda.
→ More replies (1)25
8
2
u/maliciousdancer 1h ago
Even if that was accurate, they are made of 100% reusable materials. The structure degrades, all the materials needed are still there, and can be processed and reused, and their energy production over their lifetime is so much that the energy needed to recycle them is tiny.
2
u/Hiraganu 1h ago
What? Most solar panels are rated to have at least 80% of its original performance after 20-25 years. They have also gotten very cheap within the last few years.
→ More replies (11)2
u/Sea-Sir2754 51m ago
By the energy companies' standards, yes. But they don't just die after 30 years. They lose enough efficiency that it becomes worthwhile to replace them. You can sell them to a regular household and they'll continue producing free, clean energy for many more years.
196
u/Comfortable_Tutor_43 3h ago
It might not seem like it at first but the environmental damage from traditional renewables is across the board higher than nuclear. Traditional renewables even have higher public cancer probability than nuclear (see Figure 42) according to the United Nations report cited below.
Gibon, Thomas, Á. H. Menacho, and Mélanie Guiton. "Life cycle assessment of electricity generation options." Tech. Rep. Commissioned by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2021). https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options
12
u/quick20minadventure 1h ago edited 1h ago
Who paid you to defame renewable energy? Oil companies? (This is just oil companies asking us to wait for ~hyperloop~ instead of building bullet trains)
→ More replies (1)11
u/throwawaydisposable 1h ago
forreal. the simping for nuclear energy has always been crazy on reddit but this feels extra crazy.
7
u/quick20minadventure 1h ago
This is just 'don't build bullet trains, let's just build hyperloop / fusion reactors' propaganda. Making nuclear power everywhere in the world will take 25 years, it only benefits the coal and oil industry to wait.
Not to mention we have a war going on about nuclear enrichment. You can't deploy have widespread international nuclear power plants without serious risk of enrichment / rouge nuclear dirty bombs.
→ More replies (4)3
u/h3lium-balloon 1h ago
Traditional energy companies don’t like nuclear either, their lobbying is one of the reasons it’s not more widespread
91
u/Iamfabulous1735285 Died of Ligma 2h ago edited 2h ago
Not to mention that it uses a drastically smaller land footprint than solar and wind, a single power plant could make as much power as several square miles of solar panels
3 power plants literally powers over 50% of Ontario, Canada
5
u/Katra-of-Surak 1h ago
It also uses the entire footprint of the enriched uranium or nuclear fuel supply chain.
30
u/samualgline 2h ago
One of the dumbest things they did in my area was shut down the nuclear power plant and then eminent domain a bunch of farm land and clearings to put it a bunch of solar panels now when I go to the state park near me I’m flanked by solar panels until the entrance it feels super dystopian. And just to make it even worse they’re working to bring the nuclear plant back on line because the data center that meta is building will require more power than the solar and existing coal plant can provide. It’s also worth noting that if they had operated the nuclear plant at capacity we could’ve shut down the coal plant
16
u/Geno_Warlord 2h ago
Nah. They’d have built a bigger data center and you’d have the coal plant open again. Either way, data centers are a plague that will consume every ounce of power leaving little for the people.
6
u/Dizzy-Crew3456 2h ago
Every time I hear the phrase “data center” I want to throw up. A lot of people are up in arms against this and the politicians just keep pushing them and pushing them. It’s terrible
4
u/Kooky_Assistance2755 1h ago
The US could power itself entirely from solar using 1/2 the land that is currently dedicated to growing ethanol corn. Not even corn we eat, corn we add to gas and burn with our cars.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)3
u/Trainman1351 2h ago
Not sure about the number, but it’s apparently equivalent to about 8 square miles of solar. Given you can stick solar almost anywhere, but it’s still an incredible difference
2
u/h3lium-balloon 1h ago
Where’d you get 8 sq miles? I’m coming up with a closer to 50-100 sq miles to equal a 1 sq mile GW nuclear plant (range depends on sun exposure for the year for the location, environment - dirty environments mean panels have to be cleaned more often, and efficiency of the installed panels).
→ More replies (2)5
u/throwawaydisposable 1h ago
Isn't that just for the year of 2020???
I don't think that includes Chernobyl's carcinogens, which is a pretty huge omission when you're talking about how things perform across the board.
11
u/CharlyFrost 2h ago
Currently it is cleaner, but to satisfy the whole global demand there would need to be an increase in uranium mining. The cost, monetary and environmental, would increase non linearly as it would get harder and harder to get falling in the same trap as gasoline. There are solar panels that are mainly silicone without the controversial rare metals, so technological improvements will reduce any drawbacks solar by a lot, which nuclear can't because at the end it's rellying on a finite rare fuel. Batteries are the biggest problem but there are ways to recicle those with high recovery.
While it is very stupid to shutdown operational nuclear power plants, it's better to invest in the furure of solar. At the end all have drawbacks, that's why reduce should have been a lot bigger than the other Rs.
→ More replies (2)3
u/godzillahavinastroke 1h ago
Uranium? We have options other than uranium that are about equally effective. Actually most reactors dont use these super rare materials, what are you on about? They use thorium and tritium in reactors more. Stuff that is much more abundant. Your information about nuclear reactors seems a little outdated.
Personally belive nuclear alone cannot solve the issue, its role is more like hydropower role, with dam's, alot of power and lobg term, as a backbone and mixed with other green sources like solar and wind. Geothermal also.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (30)24
5
u/Jacubbb123 Big ol' bacon buttsack 2h ago
I have so many solar fields around me. Can attest that it is ridiculous.
11
2
7
u/fightin_blue_hens 2h ago
Still need a baseload and need energy in areas that do not get necessary sunlight to support the region on solar like in the Pacific north West.
8
u/Kooky_Assistance2755 1h ago
Most service areas in the US get their power from elsewhere already, some multiple states away
2
u/SpaceTurtles 1h ago edited 55m ago
WA resident here:
We have a DIY solar array (it is large, which is why we went the DIY route, but still sized for roof mounting, and at a less than ideal angle). It produces a huge amount of energy and we pay nothing for the majority of the year - with efficiency upgrades, that'll go down to $0.00. Solar's ineffectiveness here is overstated (especially as climate change causes the Eternal Gray to become more of a Cyclical Gray).
Baseload is largely hydro except for the parasite that is Puget Sound Energy, who invested in coal and natural gas when everyone else was focusing renewables. Absolute circus of a company.
We also are a net energy exporter due to aforementioned hydro.
4
u/ukkswolf One does not simply 2h ago
Does it maximize energy production in the minimum amount of space?
6
u/Ricktor_67 2h ago
We already have the space. Plenty of roofs and parking lots already built for it. plus it's decentralized with less points of failure.
→ More replies (1)4
u/glowingseductra 2h ago
“Free fusion energy” is crazy when you realize your roof is basically a nuclear power plant parking lot.
3
u/Lemons-95 2h ago
Solar panels don't grow on trees mate. Making photovoltaic panels is more harmful to the environment than generating the amount of electricty they would produce in their working life with nuclear energy
→ More replies (35)4
u/XlikeX666 2h ago
wasn't AMOUNT of space require for it, makes it 100% unfriendly cuz we scorch earth ?
we cut / flatten everything and it provide VERY small amount of jobs.3
u/window_owl 1h ago
The energy sector uses in the United States uses millions of acres of land exclusively for farming corn to turn into ethanol to dilute into gasoline, a process that is far less efficient than covering the same land with solar panels and directing the electricity into the grid.
Also, solar panels installations don't have to "scorch earth" the land they are on. It's increasingly common for utility-scale solar installations to be combined with grass or even crops, known as "agrivoltaics".
5
15
u/Richtig95 1h ago
Solar energy, no? And before you say, it’s not effective, that’s false. There’s a village in Germany that was able to go off grid because they started using solar power. They produce so much energy, they were able to share with nearby towns.
→ More replies (10)
5
29
u/captaindomon 2h ago
Why are all the top posts pushing nuclear like it is magic fairy dust lately?
20
u/Skylam 1h ago
Because nuclear takes a long time to setup properly, in the meantime the energy execs can still make bank on fossil fuels. As simple as that really. The conservative party in Australia tried pushing nuclear for the same reasons.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Mr_Zoovaska Like a boss 1h ago
Yeah I'm pretty sure this nuclear propaganda machine is just to slow down renewables for the benefit of the fossil fuels industry.
→ More replies (4)16
2
u/aztechunter 45m ago
New data centers want new lil baby nuke plants to support them
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)4
3
u/Particular_Yak5829 1h ago
Nuclear, Solar, and Wind have by far the lowest deaths per Terrawatt Hour generated (construction, maintenance, operation, pollution implications combined) and it’s not even close.
13
u/Kiroho 1h ago
People still trying to post their nuclear power propaganda here? Lmao...
→ More replies (2)
83
u/GhostBrainOnline 2h ago
This is propaganda.
Yes, there are kinds of modern nuclear that are extremely environmentally friendly and safe when run safely with appropriate waste management.
But nuclear power done well takes a lot of money up front and takes years of labor to get running, and it's still a centralized power source you can't mobilize.
Because of this, only large corporations can effectively build such plants, and if that were to be popularized it would make energy monopolies easier to maintain.
Actual renewables like solar grow cheaper and more efficient every year, and battery storage is improving as well, especially with new developments in salt-based systems.
If we invested half the money and labor into solar as nuclear would take, we could go much further much faster and gain a more decentralized grid that is more secure from weather and sabotage.
17
u/Infrawonder 2h ago
I think people expect nuclear energy to be managed by the government than corporations tbh, I trust whatever government more than random corpo
6
→ More replies (2)2
u/MasterMarf 1h ago
It's not though, not in the US anyway. Constellation Energy Corp manages 15 nuclear power plants in the US.
13
u/Disciprined_Ninja 2h ago
Im of the mind that Corporations should have zero business when it comes to nuclear reactors, the temptation to cut-corners to reduce operational/safety costs is just too high, as exemplified by Bechtel's incredibly shoddy/nearly disastrous handling of 3-Mile Island.
4
u/cwx149 2h ago
I mean by that logic they shouldn't really manage anything that has the potential to be catastrophic like a coal power plant
A coal power plant explosion can be pretty damaging as well
I'm not necessarily advocating for privately run nuclear reactors but it's not like the government is immune to cost/corner cutting either
12
u/Away_Fruit5097 2h ago
Yeah, letting private corps touch anything important is usually a mistake
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)2
u/scroom38 21m ago
3 Mile Island is actually a great example of how insanely safe Nuclear Power is. The only reason anyone thinks of it as a disaster is because of how poor radiation education is.
The average total dose of radiation from 3 mile island was only slightly higher than the radiation you get from living in a stone house for a year. The maximum external dose was only double the radiation dose you get from the potassium in your body. Ever gotten a medical CT scan? That scan was significantly more radioactive than the 3 mile island disaster. Obviously any form of incident is bad, but it was never anywhere close to being dangerous to anyone.
9
u/albatross351767 2h ago
If electricity prices do not go up, it usually takes 40 years to breakeven.
9
u/fightin_blue_hens 2h ago
I wonder what kind of organization can handle costs over a long term like that for the benefit of its customers?
3
u/thejodiefostermuseum 1h ago
If solar and wind got equally subsidized as nuclear since the 50s we had 1 cent kWh electric power, smart grids and plenty of storage in all possible forms.
12
u/amodious 2h ago
True, but only because of outdated nuclear regulations. We could change legislature and cut that time in half. As for all the other issues, oil has all of them just the same. Solar has advantages, but if you look at price to power output, they are vastly less efficient. Solar has its uses as a more accessible form of power for the average person, but the average person doesnt even own land to put solar on. If we were to eventually make a stable nuclear power grid, humanity could comfortably generate all the power we would ever need, and thats only getting easier
→ More replies (1)8
u/trisic05 2h ago
Nuclear cant be mobilized? Tell that to the navy
14
u/Clayton017 2h ago
I think it’s fair to say that actual large scale nuclear infrastructure can’t be mobilized. The grid and a single vessel are obviously entirely different beasts
3
u/Eighty_88_Eight 1h ago
Actually, your comment is propaganda.
Do you notice how in an argument about environmental impact you list only negatives of nuclear energy that have nothing to do with that argument?
4
u/bytheninedivines 1h ago
To add to this, most people don't realize that nuclear isn't renewable. Eventually we will have uranium shortages like we do gas.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)3
u/kylehudgins 2h ago
The best solution is using both solar and nuclear. The sun doesn't shine all day and batteries degrade and require rare earth minerals. Nuclear fission will be improved and made safe and affordable. Then we use the grid for constant power and supplement that with solar (plus batteries) as home energy requirements are increasing (EVs). Ultimately fission will be cheaper than coal and gas, so it's not something that has to be demanded, it'll just happen as tech improves. 😊
8
u/fightin_blue_hens 2h ago
Not just solar an Nuclear. Wind, geothermal, hydroelectric can also be incredibly useful based on the region in the world.
3
u/iSnowCrash_ 1h ago
Figure out how to lower the cost of building a nuclear power plant and more will be built. People act like the public is stopping them from being built but they aren't.
3
u/Striper_Cape 1h ago
Nuclear energy instead of Gas or Coal would have been better like, 50 years ago as it would have shaved a considerable amount of carbon as well as in reduced air and water pollution. But now? When we have grid scale solar and storage? Why? It is just something else to break.
9
u/itslikewoow 1h ago
Nuclear power plants are associated with higher cancer rates.
The study found that U.S. counties located closer to nuclear power plants experienced higher cancer mortality rates, even after accounting for socioeconomic, environmental, and health care factors. The researchers estimated that over the course of the study period, roughly 115,000 cancer deaths across the U.S. (or about 6,400 deaths per year) were attributable to proximity to NPPs. The association was strongest among older adults.
8
u/Striper_Cape 1h ago
Coal Power is directly attributable to have caused the deaths of 460k people in the Medicare population.
→ More replies (1)2
u/This-Requirement6918 7m ago
As someone who lives near a ton of petrochemical plants, I would absolutely take a nuclear plant over a coal fired plant if it meant slightly better air quality.
6
u/RoleOk7556 1h ago
Nuclear energy could be, but the management running the plants tend to emphasize profits iver safety. (As shown by plant shitdowns and safety violations as the staff and training became too lax.
7
u/seriousbangs 1h ago
Wind and Solar beat nuclear without the risks.
The only places that can't just build all the wind/solar they need are a handful of Japanese cities and submarines / aircraft carriers. e.g. space constrained locations.
Don't believe me? Technologies Connections over on YouTube has the math.
Nuclear is no longer economically viable. Even before Fukushima is taken into account.
6
u/stonyb2 1h ago
Nuclear Power Plants are extremely expensive to build and produce extremely toxic waste products and if there is an accident it becomes a disaster. Anybody remember Chernobyl or Fukushima?
→ More replies (1)
10
u/Eggstreamity 1h ago
I literally felt the effects of Chernobyl growing up in Germany. We couldn’t get fresh milk because the cows had got radiated. Then they said nothing like that would ever happen again… Then Fukushima happened. It’s the safest thing in the world until it causes the next ecological crisis of our age.
→ More replies (2)9
u/WeinerBarf420 1h ago
Fukushima had two record-level natural distasters hit almost simultaneously and still had minimal environmental impact, you're just fear mongering
→ More replies (1)
15
u/want8memes 2h ago
Nuclear energy is the future I have no idea why we are not focusing on that
12
u/Desert_Aficionado 1h ago
It's too expensive. Solar, wind, & natural gas killed it. Now batteries are replacing (some) natural gas.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)12
20
u/Capn_Cooke 2h ago
Remember that guy who invented engine that ran on water? He disappeared in suspicious death I think
18
u/vhanw342 2h ago
I get the idea but I watched a video from a very trustable source on it and it seems to be a lie. He did claim to invent it and he did die few years after but it does not seem like he made a real working water car
5
u/PlasticSignificant69 2h ago
If you want actual engine that use water as a fuel and not a lie, the answer are also nuclear. Yes, fusion reactor is a nuclear reactor that could use water as its fuel
→ More replies (1)2
u/GrowingPeepers 1h ago
What part was a lie? Didn't it actually work through the process of hydrolysis?
The criticism I always heard was you're putting in more energy then you get out. Or some other kind of efficiency problem.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (4)26
u/Goldeneye0X1_ Nice meme you got there 2h ago
It's such a shame that every single inventor of the water car has been extremely depressed and ended their own life after presenting their work.
13
u/RikuKaroshi 2h ago
And usually in the same manner. 3 gunshots to the back of the head with a rifle. Too bad nobody could see the signs they were sad, ya know?
→ More replies (2)7
u/Away_Fruit5097 2h ago
Actually they always end before presenting their work, that's why we never find out how their magic cars works
2
2
2
u/Tiny-Doughnut 1h ago
Whatever combination of solutions we end up utilizing, we need to remember Jevon's Paradox.
2
u/DualActiveBridgeLLC 1h ago
Sure, in the 80s. But O&G stopped that just like they are stopping the current most environmentally friendly way with wind/solar.
2
u/Princess_Isolde 55m ago
It depends on what you're powering. A city? Absolutely. A massive cargo ship? 100%. A small town? Eeeehhhh not really worth it, better to use hydro, wind, solar or some combination
2
2
u/jubjub666420 32m ago
They never listen to people like us until it's the absolute last option and it's really unfortunate I'm glad the Age of Enlightenment is upon us hopefully people will start hearing what we say thank you for making such a beautiful beautiful meme representing it the whole thing all at once
2
u/E_seven_20 30m ago
I trust the science…
I don’t trust cheap ass corrupt capitalists maximizing profit, and our inept corporate government, run by a child rapist to keep it safe.
2
u/TurnoverIcy1998 24m ago
also one of the safest, people look at Fukushima and Chernobyl and say it shows how unsafe nuclear energy is when in reality both those accidents only happened due to corruption.
2
2
u/gerryn 11m ago
I never understood the environment people in Sweden hating on our nuclear, the risk/reward is insanely good. I read recently that the US has been running nuclear subs for like fifty years or more with Zero incidents. Like... Even fukushima is still running, they just shut down one reactor or something, not a big deal.
4
3
u/GeneQuadruplehorn 2h ago
One problem I have with nuclear is that it is basically uninsurable, so the gov't has to insure it. Which means that if there is an accident, the taxpayers are left holding the bag paying for a catastrophe. and again they will privatize the profits, socialize the losses.
3
u/cmndrnewt 1h ago
Everyone loves nuclear in theory. I’m sure 9/10 people working in the plant are awesome. It’s that 10th person I worry about.
9
u/Grey_Incubus 2h ago
Not really, especially if they store the nuclear waste in your state and the people in charge of storing it do not keep up on maintaining the containers.
4
u/Crusaderofthots420 Big ol' bacon buttsack 2h ago
Mandatory reminder that nuclear waste isn't yellow barrels of glowing green goo, that can leak into water and create three-eyed fish and superheroes. Nuclear waste spent fuel rods, gloves, ceramics, general garbage that has just been irradiated. So you don't necessarily need to maintain the storage facilities all that much, just keep it physically away from the public.
8
u/FinancialReserve6427 1h ago
and that's the problem. people who advocate for nuclear power will also be NIMBY if the stuff is held within their general area.
not to mention nuke powers dumping their waste on poorer countries.
10
4
5
u/UnicornPoopCircus 1h ago
Nuclear energy is great, until the something goes wrong with the water source cooling it.
(See: Fukushima Daiichi or Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant)
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Obienator 2h ago
Solar, wind and hydro don’t poison a continent when they have an “accident”, and tell me how “environmentally friendly” spent radioactive fuel rods are again?
3
4
3
u/sequoia503 1h ago
Are we...entirely ignoring nuclear waste? It's one of the most toxic substances on the planet and is an unavoidable byproduct of nuclear energy.
4
u/UnderALemonTree 57m ago
as opposed to the waste from burning coal and oil, which is safely and conveniently stored in your lungs
→ More replies (2)3
6
u/FanraGump 2h ago
Too bad they haven't figured out what to do with the waste in the USA.
6
u/fluffynuckels 2h ago
Except theres nuclear plants in the US that have on site or close to on site storage of the waste materials and have been doing so for a very long time
9
u/AscendMoros 2h ago
What you mean we had it figured out at one point. Spent millions setting up the site. Then like halfway through the project there was a lot of push back and they just abandoned the project. Apparently storing it on site is our masterplan now smh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
→ More replies (3)2
u/Russian-8ias Dirt Is Beautiful 1h ago
The common waste argument is misinformed. There is a hell of a lot of "waste" but most or all is either heavily diluted or just isn't spent fuel. The vast majority of the total mass is not radioactive material and is just what the high level waste is mixed with or random bits and bobs taken out of service from a facility. Everything other than the high level waste is honestly safe enough to live around. It's just likely to at least slightly raise your chances of cancer if you spend most of your time around it. The high level waste is usually melted down into a kind of glass for long term storage and is diluted in the process. You wouldn't want to live right next to it but you don't really need to bury it a mile underground in the middle of nowhere. Spent reactor fuel is also stored in dry casks. The amount of this waste is next to nothing in the grand scheme of things: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/s/2bJ0l17Xwg
→ More replies (1)5
u/CrimsonAllah memer 2h ago
If only the French thought of something.
https://international.andra.fr/solutions-long-lived-waste/cigeo
4
u/HydrogenousBase 1h ago
We have entire nuclear sites that were never meant to hold waste long term, with waste because we can’t agree on what to do with it in America. Sure it’s a great power source, anybody want to tell me what to do with all the waste that’s sitting unattended? Rhetorical. Don’t tell me. Tell someone who can fucking do something about it. As John Oliver said, “we’ve been shitting in plastic bags all throughout our home, praying it won’t leak”. He does a great piece on this. Would love to see more of it being utilized, great, but clean the fucking mess up. We can’t be leaving plutonium wherever for 480 thousand years.
2
u/keelem 53m ago
This isn't the problem you think it is. Nuclear makes very little waste, and all of it is currently stored onsite at power plants. The issue is purely because of NIMBYs as most people hearing there will be nuclear waste stored within 100 miles would freak out and fight it.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Laska_Val_ 2h ago
My long held conspiracy theory is that no one want proper nuclear power (Thorium Molten Salt Reactor) because it does not have the byproduct of depleted uranium. Its value to the worlds military industrial complexes it so high that decades long fear campaigns have been ran to keep nuclear technologies from progressing so that they don't have to look for/ build there own sources.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Nighthood28 2h ago
People in the comments are having a hard time coming to terms with the environmental benifits of nuclear. To be fair, it gets a bad rap since chernobyl. That said, if we get past the initial fear of it all nuclear can be the most effective source of cheap clean energy we are like to get. All for renewables as well but from my understanding its a scaling issue to meet grid demands.
13
u/Every_Preparation_56 2h ago edited 2h ago
Fukushima was a good reminder
4
u/fightin_blue_hens 2h ago
Literally everything that could go wrong did in Fukushima and the impact wasn't even that bad compared to just regular life.
5
u/Every_Preparation_56 2h ago
Machines can fail, people can fail, memschen the machines can fail, that will always be a risk.
→ More replies (1)4
u/IchmagschickeSachen 2h ago
To be fair, Japan isn’t exactly a good spot for nuclear reactors, considering how seismologicaly active and tsunami prone it is. Fukushima proved that. But there are plenty of places around the world that would have perfect, “boring” conditions that would make nuclear very safe
→ More replies (2)2
u/Spydirmonki 1h ago
It's not the fear of the science for me, it's the fear of the stakeholders.
At least in the US, unregulated corporate greed and unaccountable government corruption need to be stamped out before nuclear can truly be the future.
It's perfectly safe if treated carefully, responsibly, and intelligently. I can't currently name who I would trust to accomplish that.
And I doubt the US is the only country being pushed down the slope of deregulation.
2
u/stitchdog 2h ago
Three mile island as well
Remember - corporations are run by MBAs who will cut corners and take risks for the almighty "Shareholder Return"
I am not worried about the science but the people who may be involved
2
u/Mistur_Keeny 2h ago
This is only because hydroelectic technicians refuse to stop pissing in the water.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/No_Solid_3737 1h ago
Depends on how much you trust your government to not let politics interfere with the operation of nuclear plants and not end up with another Chernobyl.
2
311
u/Trickstertrick 2h ago
This feels like a false dichotomy. The question isn't whether solar or nuclear "wins." Different regions have different geography, climate, infrastructure, and energy needs. Solar may make more sense in one place, nuclear in another, and a combination of technologies in many others. The objective should be reliable low-carbon electricity, not ideological loyalty to a particular technology.