this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Asklemmy

43376 readers
1395 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] swnt@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Oh, I have two good ones:

  1. Nuclear power causes less deaths (per energy unit produced) than wind (source)

  2. You get less radiation when living near a nuclear power plant, than if that nuclear plant hadn't been there.

To explain the second: A major misconception is, that nuclear power plants are dangerous due to their radiation. No they aren't. The effect of radiation from the rocks in the ground and the surroundings is on average 50x more than what you get from the nuclear power plant and it's fuel cells. (source). Our body is very well capable of dealing with the constant background radiation all the time (e.g. DNA repairs). Near a power plant, the massive amounts of isolation and concrete will inhibit any background radiation coming from rocks from that direction to you. This means, that you'll actually get slightly less radiation, because the nuclear plant is there.

Regarding the dangers of nuclear disasters. To this day, it's been very hard to find out, if at all any people have even died to Fukushima radiation (ans not other sources such as tsunami/earthquake/etc.) Nuclear radiation causes much more problems by being an emotionally triggering viral meme spreading between people and hindering it's productive use and by distracting from the ironic fact, that the coal burned in coal power plants spew much more radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear power plants themselves. (source)

[โ€“] perviouslyiner@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[โ€“] swnt@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Haha, that's a nice explanation

[โ€“] rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Nuclear power is actually the cleanest way to produce energy. The waste from replacing solar panels and windmills (which have a service life only three to five years) is actually more of a problem than the waste from spent fuel rods. Plus environmental impacts from fuel rod production are less than solar panel and windmill production. The problem with nuclear energy happens when things go wrong. It would have to be absolutely accident free. It never has been and never will be.

Though they're on the right track with nuclear power. Fusion would be ideal, runs on seawater (fuses deuterium/tritium) and if there's a problem you simply shut off the fuel. Problem is insurmountable engineering issues, we just don't have tech for it yet (need anti-gravity). They've been working on it for many decades and progress has been painfully slow.

[โ€“] swnt@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Even when things go wrong, it's not as bad as with the other classic fossile energy sources. Exactly this calculation is included in the world in data source on deaths per kWh which I linked.

When we have car accidents normalised, massive climate change, air pollution from fossile fuels, then even the occasional nuclear accident isn't really a problem.

The problem is, that these accidents get much more attention than they deserve given how many deaths are caused by fossile fuels. When calibrating for deaths, fossile fuels should get around 100x the attention

[โ€“] SeaJ@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Windmills last much longer than five years. They generally last 20-25. Wherever you heard that bullshit number from, ignore all the other info you got from them.

Not only windmills, but also every for of alternative energy production.

[โ€“] BlackRose@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[โ€“] swnt@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

What are you trying to say by linking this article?

I mean, it even says that it was a mechanical issue - and the radiation danger was low. And even then, it's just a single person. Looking at the bigger picture, the numbers game favors nuclear+wind+solar over fossile.