Comment on TURKEY POWER

passiveaggressivesonar@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• shalafi@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Lemmy keeps telling me nuclear power is stupid. I’ve been screaming for more going on 30-years now. 🤷

  source

  • Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Maybe because we still don’t have a solution for the waste which kills people generations after your death?

    source

    • A7thStone@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      We’ve had multiple solutions for a long time. Name me some people who have been killed by nuclear waste. Other than Chernobyl I bet you can’t. How does it feel repeating decades old fossil fuel propaganda?

      source

      • Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Hahah Tell me one spot on earth where we can put this stuff safely.

        All the ones named “safe” in the past weren’t so safe actually weren’t they?

        Also detecting radiation poisoning as cause of death is super hard, if you die from cancer, it could very well be radiation, but it will not get counted as such, except it is very well documented you got exposed (which it isn’t if its in the Drinkwater supplies as we fear it will happen in a few years here in Germany with the “Endlager asse” because the tons containing the waste are rusting.

        There is still no solution for waste which is litteratly a unseeable, unsmellable, untasteble killer, radiating for longer then fucking civilization exists. We CANT possibly plan good enough to manage those kinds of timescales, and we don’t have a plan by now AT ALL

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • passiveaggressivesonar@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Can I get some references that compare nuclear waste vs coal, gas, solar, wind waste and emissions?

      source

      • Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        All the ones you mentioned except nuclear don’t create radiation waste at all…

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• sartalon@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  The problem with nuclear is: business wise, it is a TOUGH sell to the public, even without the anti-nuclear lobby groups fighting with safety propaganda.

  It takes a much higher capital spend to start up nuclear than any other type of plant, so you won’t “break even” for 30 plus years, if ever.

  It doesn’t help when there are high profile sites that are being refurbished, whose costs are already phenomenaly high, and then the managing firm fucks it up (I’m looking at you Crystal River).

  It makes it high risk, financially. And it’s the public that ultimately ends up paying.

  My hope is that SMR’s become viable. They introduce a new factor though. If you get small, “cheaper” nuclear plants, then you will get more operators and you will get some that may run fast and loose. One fuck up can ruin it for everyone.

  source

  • passiveaggressivesonar@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I can accept the argument that it’s safe and effective but the public irrationally won’t accept it. Seems to have been a pretty good sell on the other side of the curtain though

    source
  • BluesF@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    SMRs also produce significantly more waste for the amount of power generated.

    source
• BluesF@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  It’s sort of too late for nuclear though. They take years to build and cost a fortune. The time to invest in nuclear power on a large scale was probably 10 years ago (although, was it as safe then? I don’t know)… Right now we need answers that get us away from fossil fuels much, much quicker. Nuclear may still be a part of the picture, but renewables are more pressing.

  source

  • passiveaggressivesonar@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Think beyond your own lifetime

    source

    • BluesF@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      The energy problem we have isn’t beyond my lifetime, it’s now. There is a finite amount of investment available for new energy projects, and if we pour it into nuclear that means 10+ years of continuing with present usage of fossil fuels. Obviously I know noone is suggesting we do only nuclear, but the point remains that renewables projects can be completed sooner and cheaper. Even if we continue to use nuclear to support the base load and decide to develop some level of capability beyond what exists today, the majority of investment should go to renewables.

      source

      • Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        We have there options:

        1. Continue fossils and make earth uninhabitable for a medium (on the scale of humanity) duration of time.

        2. Switch to renevables, even if it means changing our way of living, maybe overproducing less, having less ultra riches etc.

        3. Switch to nuclear, which isn’t fast enough to stop the fossil problem but also contaminates earth for a ultra long amount of time and also is way harder to get rid of (we have at least in theory options to get co2 out of the atmosphere even if its not at all practical/usable e ough to help us with our current situation, for nuclear waste there is literally nothing you can to except wait.)

        source
  • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Thing is this has been said for longer than I’ve been alive, and will probably still be said after I’m dead, in the intervening 70-80 years we could have and could be actually building the damn things.

    source

    • BluesF@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Thing is this has been said for longer than I’ve been alive, and will probably still be said after I’m dead

      I’m not making this argument in the past, I’m making it now.

      in the intervening 70-80 years we could have and could be actually building the damn things

      Well, they are being built? It’s not like the world has abandoned nuclear power. We need the base load, there’s certainly an argument to use some nuclear, but the safety and waste issues mean it shouldn’t really ever be our only way to generate power, at least until some of those problems are solved. Modern reactors are much safer than they once were, but as I said before - the fossil fuel situation is immediate and pressing. I’m not sure I disagree with anyone who made this argument in the past - renewables are a faster way to convert away from fossil fuels. It’s more pressing now than ever, but it isn’t a new problem and it’s been urgent for a long time. Just because we failed to solve it before doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. What’s your reasoning to focus on nuclear rather than renewables today?

      source

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        My reasoning is we should do both, nuclear and renewables both have useful properties in the short and long term and the idea we can’t afford both seems ridiculous when we can apparently spend huge amounts of money on things like space tourism and giving amazon more money back in rebates than they paid in taxes to begin with.

        source

        • -> View More Comments