A community discussing nuclear power, including fission and fusion. The goal is to talk about generated nuclear power, so avoid simply talking about stars or something unless it is relevant.
## Rules
1. Stay on topic
1. Behave yourself
1. No trolling, spamming etc.
1. Follow
lemmy.ml’s code of conduct
There is not much to talk about, we had nuclear power and it did not worked out. We had disasters and the next are about to come, it is a mathematically statistic thing. You can build it as secure as you want, there will be unpredictable events and downplaying it is pure Hybris. Downplaying this is something I am not going to support and there are no convincing arguments as the waste problem will remain, even with newer thorium and thorium molten salt based reactors.
I do not like people creating communities to make a joke out of very serious topics. People already died and swiping this under the carpet hurts my and other peoples feelings. This is one of such communities which is destent to very fast will go out of control because people are sensitive to such topics, same like politics I for myself will say out of it because whatever you say can only hold against you because the next disaster will come and I do not think we should encourage or support it even further and lie that this is a good thing.
If people like to talk about okay, but without me and my passion for this, nor do I want to pretend that nuclear energy is something humanity as whole should continue to support. However, I get you point but I for myself try to stay out of it, which is why I block it, there is simply a fine line and I do not want to cross it.
What I am willing to talk about are alternatives and the pros and cons, but pretending that we should continue is simply bad, especially given the fact that we recently saw again what governments can and maybe will do, the next step to create dirty bombs out from it is not so far away and this is something that I cannot respect nor tolerate as a private person.
You are making a lot of assumptions, such as that we treat disasters as a joke and sweep them under the ruq, that we downplay issues etc. with no reason. I have not yet even made a sidebar for the community.
If you are unwilling to give us the opportunity, just say so, there is no need for wild accusations.
When do you mention any disasters and outline this. Right, there are no posts or threads mentioned. So it is quite the opposite, because you also responded in the video youtube link thread that ENTIRELY plays down all downsides of nuclear and make it look like you can drink out of the barrels. This is the first thing that should be linked and mentioned and no one except me and some other fine people here express their concerns.
Nuclear deserves zero opportunity and zero tolerance. At least not from me and I deeply shocked that people play everything down here and want to advertise nuclear energy as solution.
Yes, precisely, we never downplayed disasters.
?? You just agreed with me.
This is a ludicrous claim. Did you even watch the video? All it does is explain we have safe ways of handling nuclear waste.
Not mention something or deliberately hiding it to avoid discussions is same as downplaying.
If you cannot understand context you should not talk about nuclear energy at all. I said it is the opposite to what that YT dude claims, which was the context but thanks to quoting it so we entirely lose context now.
There is no safe way of handling nuclear waste, never will be, his videos are clearly debunked by Fukushima, Chernobyl, the almost accident in Ukraine and in 61.
Hybris and arrogance is what this is.
Glad that dude gets shit-talked in the comment section. Clowns like him should not be allowed to upload videos on YT, especially not on sensitive topics without providing any source at all for his nonsense.
Now show me a video storing waste for 1 million years under the earth … then you can claim it is secure… there are none … which is bottom line and your lesson here.
Ultimate truth … you cannot and never will be predict all possible outcomes and you cannot plan nor build plants to be 100 percent secure.
Every time I call you out, you move the goalposts. You still have nothing. I have not hidden anything. I just created the community. Not mentioning something is NOT the same as downplaying it. Are you downplaying the Rwandan genocide because you didn’t mention it? Of course not. That’s an incredibly stupid take.
Ok, I was just confused by your grammar. But it still doesn’t work. The video does not sweep nuclear disasters under the rug. Once again, you seem to have failed to actually watched the video in question.
You just linked a wikipedia article about handling nuclear waste that proves nothing. And none of those disasters were about nuclear waste. And seriously? “Almost accidents” are on the same level now?
These are the top five comments, all in support. Forget watching the video, it seems you haven’t even followed the link lmao
And your quotes of the japanese prime minister are once again, irrelevant, as they are not about nuclear waste.
It does, it does not outline the 10 times mentioned issues, which are the real problems and not driving with a train against a wall. The possibility here that storage can be dangerous, and that it requires lots of maintenance and billions over the next decades are not even mention, in fact he mention oh the barrels are secure, how do you know that if there is no scientific proof … how you know how long a barrel hold that gets warm over time, then there are other variables. Who stored a barrel 1000+ years already and inspected it, I know no one. You cannot even simulate and predict 10k years in such a barrel because based on what data … there are no data …
The Fukushima problem is about waste, the cooling water which they use is waste, as a byproduct because you still need to cool it down even after the disaster, what they do with the contaminated water, they directly dump it back into the ocean. It is directly linked to already discusses problematic. The waste explosion is directly mentioned and linked.
Again this dude is pro nuclear supporter playing it directly down, check the title and check what nonsense he tells you in the video. Now please provide evidence that no comment getting deleted. So this is troll attempt from your end, comment something negative, then see how fast it gets deleted. That supporters supporting each other should be clear. No one in his right mind takes that dude and his nonsense video showing a train trashing against a wall serious, because this is not the problem, something you just ignore here once again downplaying everything. es he is. Claiming, oh its all secure, relax, no problem to store trash under our kids feed because nothing ever will happen, you know this is nonsense. We had incidents and the next are about to come and nuclear energy or waste or any byproducts are something that are hard to get rid of once unleashed.
The statement proves that it will get downplayed, which happened and you apparently fail to understand the big picture. The cooling process, what they used to cool the reactor, or parts of it is a byproduct and waste since you cannot recycle it. Which falls under the category waste. The govt just put it back into the ocean, claiming it is not so dangerous and no one knows that because how would someone link cancer with fish, water etc and backtrack this to this disaster and the reproductions.
Here are the counter videos against nuclear energy outlining this is no end solution with sources and links and reference material in the comment section, Lesch is a known expert and does include research links and material.
What a surprise that anti nuclear top comments supporting him, isn’t it… Well it is not but he actually explains things in details based on actual scientific research. He outlines the danger and that nuclear energy is no solution for anything at all.
Here are some waste things you overlooked, I quote it just for you.
Nothing mentioned in your … oh everything is nice and clean fancy video … because negative events are never mentioned in the big context, which clearly shows that this dude cannot taken serious.
Nothing there mention the negative history, not any danger or past incident. Just for reference. Downplaying … this is what it is, pretending is is secure, it is not.
I just cannot take you serious since your entire basis of defense is based on a video from a clown showing a train trashing into a wall claiming … oh look here its secure, forgetting to mentioned that the train is reinforced and that barrels are not stored in such a train, they are stored in the open in the underground and constantly need maintenance and money. Yes the raw barrel is stored there, in no fancy cage. You need to store them on a cold place because guess what it gets warm because of the radiation over time.
The hate is caused because people downplay it like nothing every happened. Next disaster and more cancer is upcoming because misguided people claim it is secure. Sun energy, thermal earth energy is also at any time existent same like water which can be used at any time. Wind is a bonus but also an option, combining them is the best bet we have right now until fusion energy is fully working. Exploiting uranium until it is depleted is no solution at all.
Nuclear energy coasts much more on money, resources and misguided people actually believe it has a future, it has absolute none, the resources are soon running out and then you wasted trillion of dollars what every normal thinking would invest in alternatives. But this is something such people cannot comprehend.
Ah, now you have moved on to the topic of the actual video. This community is inappropriate for such discussions, so I will cover them over in !nuclear_power@lemmy.ml in the following days. We will discuss past accidents, current technology, and whether it is an acceptable risk in our current climate crises. You will have to link english sources if you want me to respond personally though. And if I recall correctly, discussion happens in the posts, not the sidebar.
I can address your other points here:
Ah no, you cannot shift the burden of proof onto me. I showed you the comments, but you insist he is getting “shit-talked” in the comments and deleting them all.
Also lol
I blocked the community since I cannot take this video nor you serious, not after the comments here. Current technology and alternative reactors also suffer same problems, waste and this is when your road ends.
I can link english, russian or chinese sources, point is they have a Ph.D. and are experts and long in science with a huge background, more background then a video from a clown who stitches 1984 videos together, claiming oh look this is security right there. No actual scientist which is not paid by Microsoft or paid to promote nuclear energy will confirm or support such bullshit security claim because guess what no one can predict the future.
I did not said I insist, I said he deletes it. Just login, shit-talk him, see it gets deleted, besides it is irrelevant since top comments do not reflect all comments and supports sure will upvote their beloved product that the defend.
Yes barrels are pretty much open stored in the underground and not in a reinforced train trashing against a test wall.
One earthquake and the waste directly leaks into earth, only protection is special floor and some metal enforced wall but how long does it hold against severe radioactivity. How long until first accident will happen on such a huge scale, will you downplay this too… I bet…
You lose, I win. That simple, because you have zero convincing arguments. None.
There have been accidents, disasters, and ecological damage with every single energy generation method.
Many countries are using nuclear effectively, especially France, which gets like 70% of its power from nuclear.
There are zero catastrophes with wind, water or earth energy because when you shut it down, it is off and possess no further potential to harm people. This is the big difference and this is when you are wrong.
Many providers using green energy, and I get my energy from a provider that is 100 percent green since over 20 years now.
France has 23 percent green energy, this is more than in some other countries and plans to push it forward until 2050, like most EU states. The point why I mention it is that those numbers are constantly increasing and that there are plans to go minimum half green by 2050 and that in a country who supports nuclear energy directly.
Turn the hyperbole down a little:
Those linked disasters are not result of the technology. These are natural disasters or human based disasters, possible connected to climate change, caused … guess by what, overall carbon footprint and other things. Incidents for building structures are also not considered catastrophes or a disaster. It should also be mentioned that in your example, in lots of cases no one died the dams just broke without harming someone, of course it is annoying but a constructive or maintenance failure.
If you build something no matter what there can always be human based problems and deaths, this is not the point. The point is that nuclear based things can create disasters over long time period which is not the case with wind or water because if they are turned off they are off and that is it. It is not about controlling nature here or that nature also can destroy a construct you build, it is about that that nuclear causes - over the long run - more problems. Fukushima as example needs to be for cooled down, after 10 years and the compromised water still gets into the ocean, which causes unpredictable and unforeseen problems with the eco-system and even to us humans because we eat the fish. The government also plays this down, claiming that the compromised water here is not much of a harm, which everyone disagrees with.
The attempts here to play everything down only proves me right.
I only mean it’s a false claim to imply that wind/water/solar energy are inherently zero catastrophe risk.
That said, I think coming close to fully understanding and assessing (and mitigating) the risk of wind/water/solar power projects/economies is far more achievable than for nuclear energy projects/economies.
Especially so when considering the unavoidable context of the (un)predictability of both humans and environment over the next 10,000 - 100,000 years.
There are no risks, even if the damn breaks, just do not build you house underneath or near it and water is not the only option, you just took water as an example because this is possible the first thing that comes up if you google it, not telling that in most cases no one died in your examples. Of course, people could and maybe actually died building some damns … e.g. in China or died because of breakages but that was a result of bad maintenance or because people had their house near the damn. If you know it is a risk to live there you do not build your house there this is just common sense, but in lots of cases the govt decided, lets build a damn there without asking for approval or permission. Point here is that its more secure than living next to nuclear power plant which has statistical a history of health problems and cancer risks, a damn can only break and that is it, theoretical chance here is much higher that once you are near a power plant die of cancer than the chance that damn breaks and you die because of that.
These are also not considered a disaster per definition, cause you can rebuild the damn, improve it, get some water back into it. It is cheaper to maintain a damn regularly than spending billions of billions of dollars for storing barrels underground and maintain them.
Build damn, make sure no one lives near by or under it, it is really that easy. In china the deaths are usually because govt decided to build it there and people refused to leave their homes, in lots of cases government gave them a chance to move to another location and people refused because some people are stubborn.
If nuclear power plant explodes and you are not nearby you still be affected one way or another, which is the underlying truth here.
You don’t build a conclusion for a technology based on sweeping aside risks of your favoured solution while emphasising the risks of your favoured solution, which is what you did with your “There are zero catastrophes with[…]” comment.
You lay it all out and compare the whole model.
I think laying it all out for wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear, will raise a whole lot of issues with all the technologies. Some specific models of tech will have unresolvable issues (e.g, megadams, dense solar-farms on arable land, any nuclear tech which can feed proliferation).
I suspect the whole supply/waste-chain for nuclear will have unresolvable issues, and very few of the hydro/solar will have unresolvable issues.
Trouble is getting people to agree on how to compare the risk of a well-engineered dam failing and the risk of your nuclear waste storage leaking into the water table, or a contaminated coolant pipe spraying vapour into the prevailing wind, or radioactive contaminated scrap metal making its way into the commercial steel market, or…
Anyone suggesting the thorium-pebble-bed or similar “holy-grail” 100% safe theoretical tech seems to be living between fantasy and pipe-dream.
I do not expressed any conclusion, I argued on the given example that is not even comparable to the danger of what nuclear energy comes with, we do not even started the topic here, there is the fact that this can be used with some effort to build bombs, that you need to store the waste over so many years that no one … really no one can comprehend this, then there will be climate based disaster, we will run out of uranium, there will be political changes and so many other factors that we have not even talked about and I have absolute no interest because this whole defending of a toxic system leads to nothing and no one can change my mind here.
This is compared against coal and not renewable energy sources. Water, like we talked about produces no air pollution compared to coal. We also did not talked about fossil fuels, the thing is uranium will run out in next 130 years.
Air pollution is in general a human created problem. Most pollution is created in and around bigger cities and industries, this is irrelevant to our discussion here as there is no scientific proof possible when car based pollution and coal based industrial pollution causes what exactly and how many people die since both mixes in the air.
I call BS, cancer statistic are rising since nuclear power plants, there lots of statistics that your chance to get cancer near power plant raises dramatically and and and. We are also not talking here about replacements or fossil fuels, we are talking about green energy. Earth heat for example, which constantly works and there is no limit, of course even the universe has limits but it does not run out in the next 100k years.
I said everything here I had to say and people downplay it, which I expected. Nothing people can bring forward is new to me and nothing will change my mind as some fundamental problems and threats that nuclear energy comes with can be solved and this is the reason I blocked the community, and I am out now here from the discussion, since I cannot extract any useful information that brings us any step forward. People tend to downplay it or find weaknesses in renewable, this is not what I am interested in. I am interested in showing that nuclear energy is not an end-solution and that is has huge dangers, which I did now and no one here claims that we have the perfect alternatives overnight. It is a team-play effort and I am shocked to see that people still supporting nuclear energy. I at least expected that we come to an common ground that nuclear based energy sources are not the answer and that we should go other ways, also to keep peace on earth and maybe even get rid of nuclear weapons but this is me - an idealistic fool, sadly people still think that nuclear is the way to go.
I call it madness and genocide.
Doing the same thing and expect different results - definition of craziness. - A. Einstein.
nuclear energy is one of the safest methods of power generation, with literally hundreds of times less deaths per energy unit compared to fossil fuels, which cause tens of millions of deaths through air pollution
even though nuclear energy causes more deaths per unit of energy produced compared to renewable sources of energy, it is nonetheless crucial to a successful transition away from fossil fuels for power generation, bc nuclear plants’ energy output is relatively constant, independent of circumstances, and as such it provides the absolutely essential “base power capacity”, which is always consumed, and cannot be reliably provided by renewable sources of energy
in most cases, shutting down nuclear power plants causes deaths, not prevents them, because to some degree their power generation capacity is going to be replaced with fossil fuels, which are, again, orders of magnitude more deadly