• ThatWeirdGuy1001@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Because the environmental damage caused by the largest nuclear disasters in history is still nothing like the damage from fossil fuels.

    Not just that but the fossil fuel industry’s history is full of much worse disasters than any nuclear plant.

    If you were to truly compare them based just off safety it’s no contest. Nuclear power is cleaner and safer

    • rusticus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      But there was no actual comparison. The post was pointing out how the safety was not good enough, not that it was less safe than fossil fuels. Not everyone is comfortable with a nuclear power plant in their back yard. So I guess you’re perfectly fine with the current level of nuclear power regulation and safety? Good. The rest of the public is not for the reasons stated.

      • ThatWeirdGuy1001@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        The rest of the public has been manipulated by oil barons who constantly push these fear mongering talking points.

        It is safer in every way.

        You act like Homer Simpson is real and that’s how nuclear power plants operate. In the modern age unless it’s just gross incompetence it’s been safer for decades.

        Oh and if you want those safety regulations to ever get better you have to keep putting money into them. You’re not gonna get progress by ignoring them.

        In fact that’s the only reason nuclear power isn’t more prevalent because the average citizen is so blinded by oil propaganda they refuse anything to do with it.

        • rusticus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ll type it for the third time in this thread: But there was no actual comparison.

          And there are 2 more important reasons to table new nuclear plant development.

          • CeeBee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            What’s to compare? On a per kWh basis, nuclear is cleaner and safer. On a per accident basis nuclear is cleaner and safer. On a waste product basis nuclear is cleaner and safer.

            Coal plants emit radioactive material in the smoke they kick out. They literally spit continuous radioactive material into the air. Nuclear plants simply do not.

            In fact, putting aside Chernobyl (there are so many reasons including it skews the numbers against nuclear unfairly) there have been more deaths related to wind turbines than nuclear plants.

            Edit: and even with all the deaths from Chernobyl, it’s still safer on a per kWh basis. :End-Edit

            The reason Chernobyl is unfair is for a few reasons. Most of them being abhorrent policies that were enacted by the Soviet Union.

            Operators of the plant were poorly trained. Design flaws that could impact safe operation were classified and not shared with the operators. Testing processes were a joke by all standards, even for the time. And the RBMK reactors were simply flawed in their design, and it was known about from the beginning because it was done to be cheap.

            Compare that with a CANDU reactor which has both active and passive safety mechanisms that make it nearly impossible to meltdown. The closest we’ve ever had to an accident was a false alarm about contaminated water leaking that was sent out from the Darlington, Ontario plant a number of years ago.

            And the issue with nuclear waste isn’t as huge as everyone makes it out to be. The vast majority of the spent fuel drops down to background levels in a few decades. And the really radioactive stuff, which is about 2% of the total fuel, is radiative for thousands of years. But the fun fact about that is it can be reprocessed into new fuel and used again in a reactor like the CANDU reactors.

            The only reason that fuel isn’t being recycled today is because it’s still economically cheaper to just use new fuel and store the used stuff on site.

            • rusticus@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              lol. I’ve said now 4 times this is not about nuclear vs fossil fuels. It’s hilarious the perseveration on this.

              Nuclear is dead. Accept it and move on to fixing the problems with renewables. There are 2 fantastic reasons to avoid nuclear.

              • CeeBee@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Nuclear is far far FAR from dead. In fact it’s picking up steam. And nuclear should be used alongside renewables. There’s no reason we can’t invest in nuclear and renewables at the same time. And keep in mind that the money invested in nuclear doesn’t take away funding from renewables.

                • rusticus@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  At least in the US the number of applications for nuclear plant construction has dropped 75%.

      • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        2 million people die every year from coal emissions. Nuclear weapons haven’t even killed that many.

        • rusticus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          “But there was no actual comparison.” I’m typing it again because it seems you missed that part.

            • rusticus@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              None. Please go back and read the thread. It wasn’t about an actual comparison, even though you and others seen to perseverate on the “fucking” comparison.

                • rusticus@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You: hey fuckin moron, I want you to talk about this thing that you didn’t bring up and specifically stated your comment was not about. Stop getting upset that I keep talking about it!!

                  Me: yeah I don’t want to hear about your hamster porn addiction either. STFU and have your “legitimate conversation” with someone else.