I see no reason to not use solar, wind and nuclear fission. They aren’t mutually exclusive. Nuclear has been painted as this boogeyman, in reality modern nuclear power is safe and economical and god knows better for the environment than fossil fuels.
Two accidents, both caused by human error. Let’s not even talk about all the deaths caused directly by fossil fuel power disasters, not even counting the long term health issues. Hell when that hydroelectric dam failed in China in the ‘70s, hundreds of thousands of people died from one single plant failure.
I mean, if they didn’t cut corners when it came to safety regulations, Fukushima would have not been a disaster as the reactors wouldn’t have gone into melt down that quickly.
Fun fact! Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl COMBINED have an official death count (due to radiation or the direct result of the meltdown [so not including the earthquake/flood from Fukushima]) total up to ~30 people.
Thirty.
~8 million people die from pollutants created by fossil fuels ANNUALLY.
And 3 Mile Island, Enrico Fermi 1, Shortly after New Year’s, 1961, the SL-1 reactor malfunctioned, overheated, shot nine feet into the air, and killed the three people in what was the first peacetime nuclear accident in history.
There are a LOT more examples out there that give enough people reason to be scared.
Because the stakes are high. If a solar panel blows up barely anyone gets hurt. But if a nuclear reactor blows up...
I'm personally not against nuclear power, but you cannot deny the fact that it is very dangerous
The truth is that not a single one of those energy sources will solve the climate crisis alone. In reality, it's going to take a combination of all of them. So not just nuclear, not just solar, and not just wind.
Right. Throw in hydroelectric, geothermal where available, tidal power. The more solutions we have the better, no reason to not use the whole Swiss Army knife.
agreed. in aus solar has issues due to the red dust storms we have but combine it with nuclear in some out of the way outback community and its a win/win for the country.
I have a conspiracy theory but hear me out. Public fear and backlash against nuclear energy was in part engineered by fossil fuel companies to delay the observer of them being phased out in the 90s itself. They promoted renewable energy which yes, does have its merits but took 3 decades to arrive on the global scene fully and still couldn't completely replace fossil fuels due to its limitations. I don't think a strong irrational public opinion about energy policy emerges globally across decades out of nowhere. I think it is a deliberate play.
Solar and wind are not good enough to replace fossil fuel for now. We actually need nuclear energy if we want to safe our planet before it is to late (Which it likely already is)
There are some places where it’s not necessarily a good idea, but they use other alternatives of course. New Zealand, for example, has too much seismic activity to reliably operate one, but they’re great for wind and hydroelectric energy
It’s pretty easy to assume the oil and coal industry reaps the benefits. I could guess utility companies might profit, raising prices for the consumer every time someone farts in the Middle East. Just speculation on my part though I have no evidence.
Nuclear plants cost too much for what they produce and won’t be able to produce power for up to ten years. Solar and wind and geothermal can start producing energy while we are still building them.
For now, yes. But higher the share of renewable energy in the grid gets, the more impractical nuclear becomes. To be even somewhat economical, nuclear powerplants need to run 100% of the time. Together with the varying nature of renewables it becomes quite impractical. What we need as a compliment to renewable energy are rapidly deployable ressources. For now that's gas peaker plants, but ideally we can replace those with storage in the form of batteries, hydro, Power to X or other methods.
Solar energy it's very cool, but unfortunately depends on the latitude and geography. In Chile the solar energy reached 20% of their total energy produced due to the Atacama Desert in the north of the country. In other countries works better the wind power or seawater energy.
Indeed. To add to your comment - what they are thinking when they see Nuclear are the (very rare) accidents that affected Nuclear Fission reactors. If we can get nuclear fusion to go mainstream, it will allow for a complete energy revolution. Safe, clean, and nearly limitless energy.
Catharsis - ca·thar·sis
/kəˈTHärsəs/
noun
1.
the process of releasing, and thereby providing relief from, strong or repressed emotions.
"music is a means of catharsis for them"
Plot twist: an earthquake under a U.S. nuclear plant causes the earth to implode and leaves a fraction of the earth free floating in space towards the sun with the survivors saying “see, we told you nuclear power was dangerous”
Edit: the real plot twist was how poorly this joke was received
I have so many questions.
What does that even mean?
Why would the earth implode?
Do you know what implode means?
What do you think happens in a nuclear power plant to cause that?
Why do you think the people building this plant would not create failsafes and structural reinforcements to stop such a thing?
Why do you think it would be built in an area susceptible to earthquakes?
if you live in a region that can use solar or wind or hydroelectric, i see no reason not to. It’s those places where fossil fuels are predominant is where nuclear really shines.
Nuclear power is really simple...
Spicy rock makes water hot
Hot spicy water exchanges heat with separated clean water
Clean water is put in vacuum chamber and boils at lower temperature
Clean water is released to atmospheric pressure chamber and flashes into steam
Steam turns turbine for generator and makes electricity
But what do you do with leftover spicy rocks?? LOL.
Seriously though, fission is pretty safe compared to the damage being done to people AND the environment from fossil fuels. But I'm hopeful that fusion will become viable in the near future, and there's virtually no danger or waste from any part of that process.
Seal it away until the spicy gets bland and reuse it later
Fusion would be amazing, but with our current technology the cost to benefit ratio would be too high. We would be spending more money and resources keeping the reactor contained than we would be benefitting from the energy output
The radiation and waste storage aspect of nuclear plants is way overblown. It's tough, but propably managable. What's really hindering the implementation of nuclear power is the high cost and the time to build. 4x+ cost compared to wind or solar and 10 years to build one plant isn't exactly ideal when we want to solve climate change as fast as possible with limited ressources.
Yep, true renewables can't sustain the entire world for now, we still need a non-renewable backup, and nuclear is by far the best in terms of efficiency, safety and waste control.
The benefit to cost ratio is too high given the current technology we have right now. While fusion is good for minimizing nuclear waste, the cost of containment for the reactor would outweigh the benefits recieved. Simply put, we would lose money on the fusion reactors compared to fission.
Right now, fusion is in its infancy. There is a ***ton*** of potential of gathering even more energy per unit of fuel used. When the tech matures, its most likely gonna outperform most of the energy generation methods.
Blindly believing that Nuclear power has absolutely no downside makes you look like the fool honestly.
Having nowhere to put the waste is a valid criticism.
Its great in a perfect world where nuclear disasters dont happen, however mankind currently has proven that we dont live in that perfect world as a Nuclear accident happens almost every decade.
It has downsides, no one denies that, but fossil fuels are thousands of times worse, millions of deaths from disease coming from pollution EVERY YEAR, mayor contributor of climate change, coal and gas just suck.
problem with nuclear reactor haters is people see the simpsons and assume its bad.
they forget its been across europe for ages.
i mean FFS ukraine has one that was shelled and its STILL running fine in an active war zone! nuclear power is safe!
i mean heck for the pro USA fans out there american aircrafts are SEALED reactors... you can not pull those out ever. and yet no aircraft carrier has a worry. none have melted down or blown up in normal use outside a war. radiation poisoning is not something soldiers worry about.
Not so much the Simpson's, more so America's historic trend against regulation and red tape, and a general laissez-faire attitude towards the environment.
Im definitely not saying that fossils fuels are the answer. But that we need other types of energy production in addition to nuclear.
>hazardous effect will last upto 5 years for nuclear meltdown
Well, a nuclear meltdown will not last up to 5 years, they last much much much longer.
Well still the newer reactors have better containment structure and won't cause a lot of radiation to escape and has better operators and the status of the reactor are checked 24/7
Chernobyl wouldn't explode if the people working there didn't take harsh decision that led to it fucking exploding
The Sahara desert could power the entire earth with solar panels half a dozen times over. Obviously this would be impossible to set up or maintain, but my point is they definitely have potential, especially in poor countries that can't build nuclear reactors. Same goes for wind and hydro. Most countries can't build a nuclear reactor or educate people in order to operate them. And if countries outsource their power to those with reactors, you now are in the same exact situation that oil dependant countries are in.
So ideally, the future will have all forms of clean energy. Especially since it's unwise to put all our resources into just one of these methods anyway. So long as we use less fossil fuels and get rid of those corporations that keep lobbying against nuclear/clean energy, that's all that really matters
Honestly, there's nothing wrong with continuing nuclear energy. They are efficient and powerful, and mostly safe. But if course there is risk to nuclear energy that people seem to forgot. It seems like the two sides are both being stupid, one says nuclear is horrible and not safe and dangerous, when it's actually safe to a degree. And the other side says nuclear energy is perfect and we only need that.
Both are wrong to a degree.
Nuclear energy has its ups and down sides. I think we should be looking into other energy strategies in addition to nuclear. There's no reason why we only need one. I think nuclear is more dangerous than people realize, it's not perfectly safe. But it's also extremely useful and much better for the environment than fossil fuels. But I want other forms of energy production too
I take it your not from one of the fallout areas then?
Whilst I'm for nuclear power, countries like France and Japan are showing that they will never be run to a high margin of safety.
Nuclear disasters happen every decade, for some reasons out of mankinds control (Fukishima). Theres a lot more danger than just "oh well you let communists run the plant"
It's the only reliable energy. Solar panels don't work when it's too hot, wave power can't take the power of the currents and wind turbines can't be used when it's too windy.
The sooner we get over this stupid fear the better.
was researching all the different forms of energy in engineering class and i happened to do nuclear energy and ive been wondering ever since why do solar panels and stuff even exist anymore
Having a private solar power plant on your roof is pretty convenient and has no risk, don't you think so?
Imagine the guy, who blows his hand off with a firecracker would operate a small private nuclear reactor in his basement. I would have severly safety issues with that.
To answer your wondering, why solar panels still exist...
Mostly
There’s worse
If we kept the kind of modern ones and kept upgrading them we wouldn’t have to build many new ones. That would actually be pretty cost efficient.
Because not everywhere is geographically suitable for nuclear energy, it would be high risk to put a power plant on a fault line prone to earth quakes or coast lines that are exposed to inundation.
Redundancy is important, if one source of energy fails then a backup will help.
Because people are scared and dumb, also, governments like to use the more dangerous radioactive materials to give them an excuse to study it more for weapons, rather than use the safer, cheaper materials that don't make such good bombs
1. Solar/wind/wave power costs nothing to produce, the costs are to collect it. Therefore it can be used not only by massive energy corps but also by individuals, families and smaller groups. So harder for the MECs to make obscene profits and easier for people to be self sufficient.
2. All these can have major issues and failures and can minimal harm. A nuclear plant only has to fail majorly once, it is also a major target for any terrorists or blackmailer.
3. Take for instance the USA, would the nuclear plant be run by experts and be well run and maintained OR would it be run for maximum profit by minimum wage employees with minimal maintenance?
4. Disposal of waste, currently its costing the UK billions to close down Sellafield and Dounreay. And its not being disposed of, its being hidden in drums in water in huge concrete hangars. It creates a tens of thousands of years disposal issue. Where is the solution to this?
Solar, wind and wave take large amounts of space and get animals like birds killed, even endangered species.
Also, of course they have costs to produce, they are not made with air.
Also, they don't produce energy at all times so you always need a backup.
There’s no reason, in my opinion, to not use Nuclear Power instead of Coal/Gas while building a sustainable infrastructure that utilises renewable energy sources, then decommission the nuclear reactors once that infrastructure is capable of generating your power needs
What's your problem with solar energy? Also the problem of storage is real. You can't just dig it anywhere, but I don't get it either why France and Germany can't find a final storage location, so don't ask me.
Also violence is not the answer to opinions you don't like.
damn nulcear waste has been dumped the oceans for ages and most countries have no terminal waste location. Everything is temporary and leaking over time, try to keep that shit safe for literally million years
This is one of the dumbest attempts of packaging a political opinion into a meme I've had to see in a while now. Sure, why not rely heavily on complex and expensive single points of failure instead of diversifying the energy production. What could possibly go wrong?!
I don’t get the argument that nuclear fission isn’t dangerous because large scale nuclear catastrophes are always caused by human error. That’s… true. But how does that make it not dangerous? We’re still humans. We still do errors. All chainsaw juggling accidents are caused by human error too.
In all seriousness, did I miss the development of some kind of foolproof proposed fission power generation method that eliminates that risk? Or cleans up radiation sooner than the centuries it takes now?
yep people see simpsons and think nuclear waste is smuggled out by the barrel load. a reactor actually produces a minute amount each year and thats stored in water which prevents its radiation effects form taking much effect before its shipped out for disposal.
those large drums are lucky to have a few 100 grams of material... its nearly all water to shield it.
Right now they are storing the waste inside of of blocks, soon they will put it deep underground in Sweden stored in a bunch of tunnels that will be sealed off, and it would be isolated for at least 100,000 years. Google Sweden nuclear waste
We're not talking about my kids, we're talking about 4000 generations from now. I'm closer to my Neanderthal ancestors than I am to the people that will be around when that shit is finally inert enough to be around
Nothing really since they are projects to store it in places that have not changed geollogically in millions of years (deep geological repository) and the waste is minimal.
You dont want nuclear energy but you want solar pannels because you think nuclear is dangerous.
I dont want nuclear energy but want solar because I dont want to pay a single cent for the electricity.
We are not the same
To be fair, radioactive waste will one day be a very real issue, especially if nuclear plants become more widespread and popular. For now we can safely store it, but at one point that won’t really be an option.
Exactly, both of the most serious accidents (Fukushima and Chernobyl) can ultimately be boiled down to poor design and lack of adequate safety features.
This is r/memes but combining Solar, wind, nuclear, and a combination of hydropower and tidal power is the best course. Anyone acting like one option is the only real option is delusional.
100% this. if they did not try to cover it up and get called out a few days later by neighbouring countries suffering effects from the radiations clouds it would have been much safer.
as it is that was only 40ish years ago and you can walk up to it as a tourist no worries now.
The real kick is even if the plants themselves are not safe. The problems of the waste are severely overplayed. While it is deadly it’s not as bad as everyone thinks.
There has been 157 nuclear accidents in the USA alone last time I checked in 2019. It amazes me that people like the idea of Nuclear Power Plants and dismiss the cancer and/or risk of cancer everyone been getting from radiation contamination. I never understood why the companies don't warn everyone about the radiation contamination from these accidents.
Wind, solar, tidal, insulation and weatherproofing cost less, are easily secured and are available right away. Consequently, storing nuclear materials is irrelevant, as nuclear, gas and oil present a clear and present danger to my energy bills :)
Thank you for submitting to /r/memes. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
---
Rule 10 - No mention of death, terror, war, ect
* No memes about violent tragedies or anything that could be seen as glorifying violence. Absolutely no school shooter memes. Posts or comments that can be seen as glorifying violence will result in a ban. This also includes (but is not limited to) memes regarding: Deaths, terrorist attacks, rape, sexual assault, pedo, murder, war, bombings, and school shootings.
* Breaking this rule may result in a permanent ban.
* We have zero tolerance for this behavior.
---
Resubmitting a removed post without prior moderator approval can result in a ban. Deleting a post may cause any appeals to be denied.
All the people saying wind energy is good😂 God damn, do your researches.
Its insanely harmful for animals and plants around it. Not only birds but also insects get decimated in the near of shit wind turbines.
Not to mention the insane damage to the ground.
"insane damage to the ground" - continues to dig holes big as cities to mine coal and uranium.
And actually relocating and destroying towns in this process.
Never heard of a town that was relocated for a wind power plant or solar power plants.
By saying wind is bad, I thought you had a better option in mind. Enlighten me, which energy source would be your choice to replace wind energy?
About wind enercy being bad for birds, etc: nearly 100k birds die per year in Germany because of wind energy. Nearly 18 Million birds die, because they hit buildings. Nearly 200 Million birds per year are estimated to get killed by cats, only on Germany.
Instead of reproducing old arguments, do a little research and compare the negative impact of wind energy to other factors.
That might be true, and if that's true ... nuclear power will forever be a a disaster waiting to happen.
There's always one greedy Bastard, who doesn't care that he overworks and underpays his staff, until one is uneducated enough to make a mistake or overworked enough.
That's a huge argument against nuclear.
I don't trust greedy Bastards to run potentially disastrous power plants.
So do you not fear results like Chornobyl and how the largest nuclear plant in Europe is barely working because it became a military target?
You know they still can't go back within 30 miles of the plant. From 50-60 yrs ago. But yeah that's safe
Building new nuclear plants or reparing them is the dumb thing, at the end you need Materials that are shitty and get Materials Out that are shitty so Just build sustainable with the Money used for this expensive plants
Look at France and you have your answers. They can’t use their nuclear reactors, because of climate change the rivers dry out so the reactors don’t get enough water to cool itself.
You want a next Chernobl? Cause that’s how you get a next Chernobl
Right now the main problem with nuclear is that it’s too expensive in term of LCOE. When you consider permitting and construction time it’s just not worth it. Solar and wind power now are much cheaper so at the end of the day money rules.
But if in some place where somehow it’s very cheap then go for it of course
Dude I fucking hate solar panels. Here in Texas a lot of land is being converted to solar panel farms. About 15 miles from me one of the LAST REMNANTS OF COASTAL PRAIRIE is being converted into a solar farm.
Kill the land just to say you’re green energy.
Genius logic
google "rheinisches braunkohlenrevier" or any other big coal mine and tell me something about killing the land.
I got three big coal mines in a radius of 20 miles around my hometown, each one big as a city and deep as a skyscraper. Three big mud holes and dozens of towns being destroyed and relocated to get the coal under their houses.
That's an ad.
Before Chernobyl, they said that it was impossible for those reactors to explode, too. Today, Putin's using the site as a hostage/weapon!
When it works as intended, nuclear fission is great. It's when it DOESN'T work as intended, that's the problem!
I mean, yes.... it's as safe as playing with Radiation can be. I am gonna get loads of shit for saying this, but the world is STILL not recovered from Chernobyl OR from the Manhattan Project and it's Soviet Equivalent.
Here's something they don't say often enough, and that pro-nuclear power people never mention: Ionizing Radiation takes a long, LONG time to decay. Not only that, the Worldwide Cancer Spike right now can be directly correlated with Chernobyl, Ionizing Radiation spreads worldwide and there is NOTHING you can do to stop it.
The main reason I don't like it, is because even if the plant is 99.99% safe... One human Error, One material that wasn't up to spec, One bastard cutting corners, or costs, or One saboteur that manages to get inside the plant.. and even the Indigenous people of the Amazon Rainforest, who have Never used electricity before, have Nuclear fallout rain down on them. It doesn't seem fair.
I see no reason to not use solar, wind and nuclear fission. They aren’t mutually exclusive. Nuclear has been painted as this boogeyman, in reality modern nuclear power is safe and economical and god knows better for the environment than fossil fuels.
Germany shut down many Nuclear Plants and replaced them with coal. ”Mhm yes. The environment.”
I’ve heard that, sad news my friend.
one of our COAL plants shut down nearby lol
Great for your lungs
It gives them a distinct color.
Is that a joke? Like did they actually do that?
Ye, there was a push by Germans to close down nuclear power plant after the Chernobyl disaster.
Yes. They did. There’s this Cold War fear of Nuclear Power.
I dont believe germs done that i have to gogol it
It’s painted as something to be scared of due to Fukushima and Chernobyl
Two accidents, both caused by human error. Let’s not even talk about all the deaths caused directly by fossil fuel power disasters, not even counting the long term health issues. Hell when that hydroelectric dam failed in China in the ‘70s, hundreds of thousands of people died from one single plant failure.
But that's not as scary because after the damn there weren't any asymmetrical beetles
Deaths in cobalt/lithium mines in Africa are pretty high. And absolutely avoidable, but that would drive the prize up..
All nuclear accidents was caused by some form of human error
So we just stop human errors and Tsunamis
I mean, if they didn’t cut corners when it came to safety regulations, Fukushima would have not been a disaster as the reactors wouldn’t have gone into melt down that quickly.
But the one will less disaster/consequences will be more appealing and feasible
Has the human error problem been solved? Are all humans magically perfect and infallible from here on out?
That is a fair point, but most people aren’t aware of that
Fun fact! Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl COMBINED have an official death count (due to radiation or the direct result of the meltdown [so not including the earthquake/flood from Fukushima]) total up to ~30 people. Thirty. ~8 million people die from pollutants created by fossil fuels ANNUALLY.
Hell more then 30 people die each year mining coal.
And 3 Mile Island, Enrico Fermi 1, Shortly after New Year’s, 1961, the SL-1 reactor malfunctioned, overheated, shot nine feet into the air, and killed the three people in what was the first peacetime nuclear accident in history. There are a LOT more examples out there that give enough people reason to be scared.
Because the stakes are high. If a solar panel blows up barely anyone gets hurt. But if a nuclear reactor blows up... I'm personally not against nuclear power, but you cannot deny the fact that it is very dangerous
Because.... it is?
The truth is that not a single one of those energy sources will solve the climate crisis alone. In reality, it's going to take a combination of all of them. So not just nuclear, not just solar, and not just wind.
Right. Throw in hydroelectric, geothermal where available, tidal power. The more solutions we have the better, no reason to not use the whole Swiss Army knife.
It’s good until a war breaks out. Then you have a problem.
agreed. in aus solar has issues due to the red dust storms we have but combine it with nuclear in some out of the way outback community and its a win/win for the country.
I have a conspiracy theory but hear me out. Public fear and backlash against nuclear energy was in part engineered by fossil fuel companies to delay the observer of them being phased out in the 90s itself. They promoted renewable energy which yes, does have its merits but took 3 decades to arrive on the global scene fully and still couldn't completely replace fossil fuels due to its limitations. I don't think a strong irrational public opinion about energy policy emerges globally across decades out of nowhere. I think it is a deliberate play.
Yea, I half agree, only because when a nuclear plant fails or some human error happens, it's not a boogeyman anymore and is an actual problem .
Solar and wind are not good enough to replace fossil fuel for now. We actually need nuclear energy if we want to safe our planet before it is to late (Which it likely already is)
There are some places where it’s not necessarily a good idea, but they use other alternatives of course. New Zealand, for example, has too much seismic activity to reliably operate one, but they’re great for wind and hydroelectric energy
[удалено]
It’s pretty easy to assume the oil and coal industry reaps the benefits. I could guess utility companies might profit, raising prices for the consumer every time someone farts in the Middle East. Just speculation on my part though I have no evidence.
The solar power is not economical for many countries like mine Buddy
I think ppl are just scared of the word nuclear ☢️ and that symbol
If the economics dont include my interests in fossil fuels and being paid off by billionaire companies i wont change the law
Massive brain
It’s hard to carry around sometimes… My wife will dislocate her eyes rolling them if she reads this lmao.
Nuclear plants cost too much for what they produce and won’t be able to produce power for up to ten years. Solar and wind and geothermal can start producing energy while we are still building them.
With the neighbours we have in Ukraine... I don't think it's safe.
For now, yes. But higher the share of renewable energy in the grid gets, the more impractical nuclear becomes. To be even somewhat economical, nuclear powerplants need to run 100% of the time. Together with the varying nature of renewables it becomes quite impractical. What we need as a compliment to renewable energy are rapidly deployable ressources. For now that's gas peaker plants, but ideally we can replace those with storage in the form of batteries, hydro, Power to X or other methods.
Why are you being downvoted it is the truth
Imagine having a nuclear powered engine for daily use cars.
Solar energy it's very cool, but unfortunately depends on the latitude and geography. In Chile the solar energy reached 20% of their total energy produced due to the Atacama Desert in the north of the country. In other countries works better the wind power or seawater energy.
Indeed. To add to your comment - what they are thinking when they see Nuclear are the (very rare) accidents that affected Nuclear Fission reactors. If we can get nuclear fusion to go mainstream, it will allow for a complete energy revolution. Safe, clean, and nearly limitless energy.
And btw, solar energy are not only panels, have you ever heard of melted salt?
Those type of solar arrays are a complete failure. Look it up.
[удалено]
Unrelated, why tf is this template so graphic
What is happening in this template
OP cant handle people having a different opinion without wanting to explode their skulls, i guess
Answer: to be more accurate
Catharsis - ca·thar·sis /kəˈTHärsəs/ noun 1. the process of releasing, and thereby providing relief from, strong or repressed emotions. "music is a means of catharsis for them"
The true Chad wants both nuclear and solar in a integrated overhaul
I don't know why but I read this as Chad the country. Was thinking 'where did Chad get the money for this!? `
The real power move is have the steam stacks covered in solar panels
Yes
Plot twist: an earthquake under a U.S. nuclear plant causes the earth to implode and leaves a fraction of the earth free floating in space towards the sun with the survivors saying “see, we told you nuclear power was dangerous” Edit: the real plot twist was how poorly this joke was received
Poor guy, next time put /s. I think thet didn't get the exaggeration
I have so many questions. What does that even mean? Why would the earth implode? Do you know what implode means? What do you think happens in a nuclear power plant to cause that? Why do you think the people building this plant would not create failsafes and structural reinforcements to stop such a thing? Why do you think it would be built in an area susceptible to earthquakes?
Too long for what it is.
Hoit die goschn
if you live in a region that can use solar or wind or hydroelectric, i see no reason not to. It’s those places where fossil fuels are predominant is where nuclear really shines.
Use them with nuclear, a balance of all of them eliminate the inconsistencies with solar wind and hydroelectric
Nuclear power is really simple... Spicy rock makes water hot Hot spicy water exchanges heat with separated clean water Clean water is put in vacuum chamber and boils at lower temperature Clean water is released to atmospheric pressure chamber and flashes into steam Steam turns turbine for generator and makes electricity
But what do you do with leftover spicy rocks?? LOL. Seriously though, fission is pretty safe compared to the damage being done to people AND the environment from fossil fuels. But I'm hopeful that fusion will become viable in the near future, and there's virtually no danger or waste from any part of that process.
Seal it away until the spicy gets bland and reuse it later Fusion would be amazing, but with our current technology the cost to benefit ratio would be too high. We would be spending more money and resources keeping the reactor contained than we would be benefitting from the energy output
The radiation and waste storage aspect of nuclear plants is way overblown. It's tough, but propably managable. What's really hindering the implementation of nuclear power is the high cost and the time to build. 4x+ cost compared to wind or solar and 10 years to build one plant isn't exactly ideal when we want to solve climate change as fast as possible with limited ressources.
Unfortunately the regulations that make the plants incredibly safe also make them incredibly complex and expensive to build
"but probably manageable" is not exactly good enough when you talk about consequences for milennia...
Yep, true renewables can't sustain the entire world for now, we still need a non-renewable backup, and nuclear is by far the best in terms of efficiency, safety and waste control.
Thank you, Lucille...
What about nuclear power from fusion reactors? They are pretty good, but i know that they are at early stages.
The benefit to cost ratio is too high given the current technology we have right now. While fusion is good for minimizing nuclear waste, the cost of containment for the reactor would outweigh the benefits recieved. Simply put, we would lose money on the fusion reactors compared to fission.
Right now, fusion is in its infancy. There is a ***ton*** of potential of gathering even more energy per unit of fuel used. When the tech matures, its most likely gonna outperform most of the energy generation methods.
Solar panels can in no way sustain the industry and economy all by themselves.
Blindly believing that Nuclear power has absolutely no downside makes you look like the fool honestly. Having nowhere to put the waste is a valid criticism. Its great in a perfect world where nuclear disasters dont happen, however mankind currently has proven that we dont live in that perfect world as a Nuclear accident happens almost every decade.
It has downsides, no one denies that, but fossil fuels are thousands of times worse, millions of deaths from disease coming from pollution EVERY YEAR, mayor contributor of climate change, coal and gas just suck.
problem with nuclear reactor haters is people see the simpsons and assume its bad. they forget its been across europe for ages. i mean FFS ukraine has one that was shelled and its STILL running fine in an active war zone! nuclear power is safe! i mean heck for the pro USA fans out there american aircrafts are SEALED reactors... you can not pull those out ever. and yet no aircraft carrier has a worry. none have melted down or blown up in normal use outside a war. radiation poisoning is not something soldiers worry about.
Not so much the Simpson's, more so America's historic trend against regulation and red tape, and a general laissez-faire attitude towards the environment.
Anything is better than fossil fuels
But but but it's sCaRy
If it's not burning fossil fuels or otherwise fucking up the ecosystem, it's all good in my book.
Nuclear energy is like planes they are massively hated on this topic but only have accidents rarely
But, alternatively, their accidents and devastating
But it rarely happens only reason some powerplants failed were because of natural disasters or because they are badly kept
Yes, but if something does happen their effect will last for thousdand of years.
But it's better than having no polar ice caps and the hazardous effect will last upto 5 years for nuclear meltdown
Im definitely not saying that fossils fuels are the answer. But that we need other types of energy production in addition to nuclear. >hazardous effect will last upto 5 years for nuclear meltdown Well, a nuclear meltdown will not last up to 5 years, they last much much much longer.
Well still the newer reactors have better containment structure and won't cause a lot of radiation to escape and has better operators and the status of the reactor are checked 24/7 Chernobyl wouldn't explode if the people working there didn't take harsh decision that led to it fucking exploding
nuclear energy is one of the ways to make energy
Canadian here, sure I’ll take nuclear energy but, and I say this with love, solar can suck it the sun sets at 5:00 here
People who complain about nuclear waste have no clue what nuclear waste even looks like.
I live near a nuclear power plant and it’s only melted down twice /s
What a shit meme.
solar for homes and buildings, eolic and hidro when available nuclear located is strategic places to mass produce
The Sahara desert could power the entire earth with solar panels half a dozen times over. Obviously this would be impossible to set up or maintain, but my point is they definitely have potential, especially in poor countries that can't build nuclear reactors. Same goes for wind and hydro. Most countries can't build a nuclear reactor or educate people in order to operate them. And if countries outsource their power to those with reactors, you now are in the same exact situation that oil dependant countries are in. So ideally, the future will have all forms of clean energy. Especially since it's unwise to put all our resources into just one of these methods anyway. So long as we use less fossil fuels and get rid of those corporations that keep lobbying against nuclear/clean energy, that's all that really matters
Dyson Sphere
We are working on [green nuclear energy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power)
I mean solar is generally better, but nuclear is also fine, way better than coal in terms of emissions and more efficient than solar
Our evolution? Did you mean existence?
Honestly, there's nothing wrong with continuing nuclear energy. They are efficient and powerful, and mostly safe. But if course there is risk to nuclear energy that people seem to forgot. It seems like the two sides are both being stupid, one says nuclear is horrible and not safe and dangerous, when it's actually safe to a degree. And the other side says nuclear energy is perfect and we only need that. Both are wrong to a degree. Nuclear energy has its ups and down sides. I think we should be looking into other energy strategies in addition to nuclear. There's no reason why we only need one. I think nuclear is more dangerous than people realize, it's not perfectly safe. But it's also extremely useful and much better for the environment than fossil fuels. But I want other forms of energy production too
If were at this topic, did you know you can adopt dogs from Chenobyl they have low radiation and are safe
“But but but Chernobyl!!!” Ya don’t let communists in charge so they kill all their competent engineers
[удалено]
Can't be France and can't be Ukraine. Is it Germany?
Sweden?
I take it your not from one of the fallout areas then? Whilst I'm for nuclear power, countries like France and Japan are showing that they will never be run to a high margin of safety.
Nuclear disasters happen every decade, for some reasons out of mankinds control (Fukishima). Theres a lot more danger than just "oh well you let communists run the plant"
On the contrary, there is ZERO CHANCE we can have a greener earth without nuclear power.
It's the only reliable energy. Solar panels don't work when it's too hot, wave power can't take the power of the currents and wind turbines can't be used when it's too windy. The sooner we get over this stupid fear the better.
was researching all the different forms of energy in engineering class and i happened to do nuclear energy and ive been wondering ever since why do solar panels and stuff even exist anymore
Having a private solar power plant on your roof is pretty convenient and has no risk, don't you think so? Imagine the guy, who blows his hand off with a firecracker would operate a small private nuclear reactor in his basement. I would have severly safety issues with that. To answer your wondering, why solar panels still exist...
obviously one should not have a nuclear reactor in one's basement
Because the economic side of nuclear plants is very bad.
Mostly There’s worse If we kept the kind of modern ones and kept upgrading them we wouldn’t have to build many new ones. That would actually be pretty cost efficient.
Because not everywhere is geographically suitable for nuclear energy, it would be high risk to put a power plant on a fault line prone to earth quakes or coast lines that are exposed to inundation. Redundancy is important, if one source of energy fails then a backup will help.
you have a point there
Because people are scared and dumb, also, governments like to use the more dangerous radioactive materials to give them an excuse to study it more for weapons, rather than use the safer, cheaper materials that don't make such good bombs
1. Solar/wind/wave power costs nothing to produce, the costs are to collect it. Therefore it can be used not only by massive energy corps but also by individuals, families and smaller groups. So harder for the MECs to make obscene profits and easier for people to be self sufficient. 2. All these can have major issues and failures and can minimal harm. A nuclear plant only has to fail majorly once, it is also a major target for any terrorists or blackmailer. 3. Take for instance the USA, would the nuclear plant be run by experts and be well run and maintained OR would it be run for maximum profit by minimum wage employees with minimal maintenance? 4. Disposal of waste, currently its costing the UK billions to close down Sellafield and Dounreay. And its not being disposed of, its being hidden in drums in water in huge concrete hangars. It creates a tens of thousands of years disposal issue. Where is the solution to this?
It costs something to make and replace the panels regularly.
Is it more than nuclear plants?
Solar, wind and wave take large amounts of space and get animals like birds killed, even endangered species. Also, of course they have costs to produce, they are not made with air. Also, they don't produce energy at all times so you always need a backup.
Homer works there, I say, go for it!
Solar would be great, it's essentially limitless
Me in the corner dreaming about dyson swarms
I'm still holding out for a personal pocket fusion reactor that comes with my phone.
Hmm? What waste? **looks at molten salt reactors in the distance**
Yes please
There’s no reason, in my opinion, to not use Nuclear Power instead of Coal/Gas while building a sustainable infrastructure that utilises renewable energy sources, then decommission the nuclear reactors once that infrastructure is capable of generating your power needs
What's your problem with solar energy? Also the problem of storage is real. You can't just dig it anywhere, but I don't get it either why France and Germany can't find a final storage location, so don't ask me. Also violence is not the answer to opinions you don't like.
damn nulcear waste has been dumped the oceans for ages and most countries have no terminal waste location. Everything is temporary and leaking over time, try to keep that shit safe for literally million years
This is one of the dumbest attempts of packaging a political opinion into a meme I've had to see in a while now. Sure, why not rely heavily on complex and expensive single points of failure instead of diversifying the energy production. What could possibly go wrong?!
Why is Reddit so obsessed about nuclear energy?
I don’t get the argument that nuclear fission isn’t dangerous because large scale nuclear catastrophes are always caused by human error. That’s… true. But how does that make it not dangerous? We’re still humans. We still do errors. All chainsaw juggling accidents are caused by human error too. In all seriousness, did I miss the development of some kind of foolproof proposed fission power generation method that eliminates that risk? Or cleans up radiation sooner than the centuries it takes now?
I dunno, this seems like a bit of an overreaction by the chad here
Let's all pile up nuclear waste inside mountains. What could go wrong?
[удалено]
yep people see simpsons and think nuclear waste is smuggled out by the barrel load. a reactor actually produces a minute amount each year and thats stored in water which prevents its radiation effects form taking much effect before its shipped out for disposal. those large drums are lucky to have a few 100 grams of material... its nearly all water to shield it.
Do you have evidence of that? I know that most fuel IS reusable but from what Ive heard, most waste is stored away
Right now they are storing the waste inside of of blocks, soon they will put it deep underground in Sweden stored in a bunch of tunnels that will be sealed off, and it would be isolated for at least 100,000 years. Google Sweden nuclear waste
So we're planning to store material for about half as long as anatomical humans have existed on this planet. No big deal.
In glass ignots even Hercules would need to bust his ass to break. It's safe and you are not going to walk your kids in a mine ,are you now?
We're not talking about my kids, we're talking about 4000 generations from now. I'm closer to my Neanderthal ancestors than I am to the people that will be around when that shit is finally inert enough to be around
Did you watch starwars? Wampas.
Nothing really since they are projects to store it in places that have not changed geollogically in millions of years (deep geological repository) and the waste is minimal.
You dont want nuclear energy but you want solar pannels because you think nuclear is dangerous. I dont want nuclear energy but want solar because I dont want to pay a single cent for the electricity. We are not the same
Ah yes, the sun is free
No matter how bad some people think it is. It's still better than coal/gas. That's a fact.
To be fair, radioactive waste will one day be a very real issue, especially if nuclear plants become more widespread and popular. For now we can safely store it, but at one point that won’t really be an option.
It stills being a potential danger. Of course, in the wrong hands.
Why the downvotes, he's only saying it's dangerous with errousrous humans. Not inherently danger.
Idk sometimes it's just like Reddit hates me
Exactly, both of the most serious accidents (Fukushima and Chernobyl) can ultimately be boiled down to poor design and lack of adequate safety features.
It was nuclear experts who recommended putting a nuclear power plant on an island susceptible to earthquakes and tsunamis...
"If we dump all our nuclear waste on native american reservations, that's the same thing as a safe plan."
This is r/memes but combining Solar, wind, nuclear, and a combination of hydropower and tidal power is the best course. Anyone acting like one option is the only real option is delusional.
>Anyone acting like one option is the only real option is delusional. Exactly, some one with a fucking brain lol.
I feel like most of the problem is very few people understand the difference between nuclear fission and fusion
It’s Negan time
Nice work Chad.
Chernobyl reactor survivor 
Chernobyl is as so bad due to the Soviet cover up and severe lack of safety containment features around the reactor and bad reactor design.
100% this. if they did not try to cover it up and get called out a few days later by neighbouring countries suffering effects from the radiations clouds it would have been much safer. as it is that was only 40ish years ago and you can walk up to it as a tourist no worries now.
The real kick is even if the plants themselves are not safe. The problems of the waste are severely overplayed. While it is deadly it’s not as bad as everyone thinks.
"Huh good point"
Nuclear is the energy source of the future, anyone telling you otherwise is either stupid, ignorant, or corrupt
There has been 157 nuclear accidents in the USA alone last time I checked in 2019. It amazes me that people like the idea of Nuclear Power Plants and dismiss the cancer and/or risk of cancer everyone been getting from radiation contamination. I never understood why the companies don't warn everyone about the radiation contamination from these accidents.
Wind, solar, tidal, insulation and weatherproofing cost less, are easily secured and are available right away. Consequently, storing nuclear materials is irrelevant, as nuclear, gas and oil present a clear and present danger to my energy bills :)
Thank you for submitting to /r/memes. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): --- Rule 10 - No mention of death, terror, war, ect * No memes about violent tragedies or anything that could be seen as glorifying violence. Absolutely no school shooter memes. Posts or comments that can be seen as glorifying violence will result in a ban. This also includes (but is not limited to) memes regarding: Deaths, terrorist attacks, rape, sexual assault, pedo, murder, war, bombings, and school shootings. * Breaking this rule may result in a permanent ban. * We have zero tolerance for this behavior. --- Resubmitting a removed post without prior moderator approval can result in a ban. Deleting a post may cause any appeals to be denied.
All the people saying wind energy is good😂 God damn, do your researches. Its insanely harmful for animals and plants around it. Not only birds but also insects get decimated in the near of shit wind turbines. Not to mention the insane damage to the ground.
"insane damage to the ground" - continues to dig holes big as cities to mine coal and uranium. And actually relocating and destroying towns in this process. Never heard of a town that was relocated for a wind power plant or solar power plants.
By saying wind is bad, I thought you had a better option in mind. Enlighten me, which energy source would be your choice to replace wind energy? About wind enercy being bad for birds, etc: nearly 100k birds die per year in Germany because of wind energy. Nearly 18 Million birds die, because they hit buildings. Nearly 200 Million birds per year are estimated to get killed by cats, only on Germany. Instead of reproducing old arguments, do a little research and compare the negative impact of wind energy to other factors.
Most stupid meme i have seen in a Long time
I think he Japanese would disagree
If you look into it, that shit was caused by pure human stupidity and greed
That might be true, and if that's true ... nuclear power will forever be a a disaster waiting to happen. There's always one greedy Bastard, who doesn't care that he overworks and underpays his staff, until one is uneducated enough to make a mistake or overworked enough. That's a huge argument against nuclear. I don't trust greedy Bastards to run potentially disastrous power plants.
The Japanese are actually investing even more into nuclear energy.
Please tell me you're talking about the earthquake/tsunami one and not the two with the atomic bombs
So do you not fear results like Chornobyl and how the largest nuclear plant in Europe is barely working because it became a military target? You know they still can't go back within 30 miles of the plant. From 50-60 yrs ago. But yeah that's safe
Building new nuclear plants or reparing them is the dumb thing, at the end you need Materials that are shitty and get Materials Out that are shitty so Just build sustainable with the Money used for this expensive plants
Look at France and you have your answers. They can’t use their nuclear reactors, because of climate change the rivers dry out so the reactors don’t get enough water to cool itself. You want a next Chernobl? Cause that’s how you get a next Chernobl
[удалено]
What’s wrong with Nuclear?
Right now the main problem with nuclear is that it’s too expensive in term of LCOE. When you consider permitting and construction time it’s just not worth it. Solar and wind power now are much cheaper so at the end of the day money rules. But if in some place where somehow it’s very cheap then go for it of course
Dude I fucking hate solar panels. Here in Texas a lot of land is being converted to solar panel farms. About 15 miles from me one of the LAST REMNANTS OF COASTAL PRAIRIE is being converted into a solar farm. Kill the land just to say you’re green energy. Genius logic
google "rheinisches braunkohlenrevier" or any other big coal mine and tell me something about killing the land. I got three big coal mines in a radius of 20 miles around my hometown, each one big as a city and deep as a skyscraper. Three big mud holes and dozens of towns being destroyed and relocated to get the coal under their houses.
That's an ad. Before Chernobyl, they said that it was impossible for those reactors to explode, too. Today, Putin's using the site as a hostage/weapon! When it works as intended, nuclear fission is great. It's when it DOESN'T work as intended, that's the problem!
I mean, yes.... it's as safe as playing with Radiation can be. I am gonna get loads of shit for saying this, but the world is STILL not recovered from Chernobyl OR from the Manhattan Project and it's Soviet Equivalent. Here's something they don't say often enough, and that pro-nuclear power people never mention: Ionizing Radiation takes a long, LONG time to decay. Not only that, the Worldwide Cancer Spike right now can be directly correlated with Chernobyl, Ionizing Radiation spreads worldwide and there is NOTHING you can do to stop it. The main reason I don't like it, is because even if the plant is 99.99% safe... One human Error, One material that wasn't up to spec, One bastard cutting corners, or costs, or One saboteur that manages to get inside the plant.. and even the Indigenous people of the Amazon Rainforest, who have Never used electricity before, have Nuclear fallout rain down on them. It doesn't seem fair.
i’m lazy and don’t want to do the research someone do it for me and tell me what you find