325
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
325 points (93.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43942 readers
635 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Nuclear is probably the safest form of power when proper protocols are put in place but it's hard to do that when the largest country in Europe (Russia, both by size and population) is currently in a war
This. Nuclear safety requires active habit keeping and protocols, hence is dependent on social stability.
Safer than wind and solar?
Oddly enough, it's safer than wind.
Solar's a little better in that regard, but all three are so much safer than any high-carbon sources of energy that any of them are great options.
I can't look at their sources, so I'm going to believe them, buuut that is death per energy units. And I can't argue that nuclear isn't more efficient and generally safe. Presumably though, those injuries from wind are from construction primarily? Nuclear power plants have been out of fashion since the 80s for some reason, so there aren't really equal opportunities for construction incidents to compare that while wind construction has been on the rise. And I can only assume that after construction, the chance incidents only go down for wind while they can really only go up for nuclear.
None of that is to say that nuclear is bad and we shouldn't use it. Statistics like this just always bug me. Globally we receive more energy from wind than nuclear. It stands to reason that there's more opportunity for deaths. It's a 1 dimensional stat that can easily be manipulated. it's per thousand terawatt per hour, including deaths from pollution. So I got curious and did some Googling.
After sorting through a bunch of sites without quite the information I was looking for, I found some interesting facts. I was wrong in my assertion that wind deaths don't go up after being built. Turns out, most of those deaths come from maintenance. It does seem to vary by country, and I can't find it broken down by country like I wanted. It's possible that safety protections for workers could shift it. But surprisingly, maintenance deaths from nuclear power are virtually non existent from what I can tell. It seems like the main thing putting nuclear on that list at all is including major incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Well, Fukushima has really only been attributed for 4 deaths total. And Chernobyl was obviously preventable. So it looks like you're right! Statistically, when including context, is definitely the least deadly energy source (if we ignore solar).
I believe so because of construction injuries but idk how well that scales
Russian war has little to do with it. For example Germany had already decided to scrap nuclear for gas, which actually bit them in the ass when the war started.
You're right with Germany's decision.
The reason why Russia is mentioned might be that Russia (and one of their close allies Kazakhstan) are the source of a good chunk of the Uranium that's used in Europe's nuclear power plants.
Sweden has large stores of uranium but the green party has opposed any new mines (uranium or not) on environmental grounds. Ignoring the fact that we then have to import resources from other countries that don't have regulations which could minimize pollution
What is safe on Nuckear Power Plants?
It's enough for hundredthousand of years, if only one time happens a SuperGAU. Only once is enough.
And the nuclear waste is dangerous as fuck for also hundredthousand of years.
And you can produce 30, 40 or maybe 50 years electric energy, and it needs the same time to decontaminate and dismantle a nuclear powerplant. And before it takes 20, 30 or mor years, to build such a plant... This is not cheap, not safe and not sustainable.
I don't trust the US Federal government to properly dispose of it. The waste from the Manhattan Project is buried in a landfill, a landfill that's on fire.
The problem isn't fire, it's that the waste at Hanford has leached into the soil and a plume of it is headed towards the Hanford Reach on the Columbia River. There's a mitigation plan in place and it looks like it's ultimately going to work, but it's very expensive and not something that anyone wants to see happen again.
I was referring to the Westlake Superfund site in St Louis right next to the Missouri river
Fair play. That said, please do look up Hanford. It's way bigger than Westlake and is potentially a much bigger problem, though granted, Westlake is problematic as well.
Nuclear waste is not dangerous when handled correctly. I'd recommend checking out Kyle Hill on YouTube about this, but when mixed with cement/sand in large amounts it becomes safe much more quickly than that. A lot of the dangers of nuclear power are actually misconceptions