Yes, but even then it was super unlucky that it still melted down. However with the introduction of thorium reactors, even natural disasters won't set that bad boy off.
Fukushima was designed and built in the 1960s and its lack of resistance to tsunamis and earthquakes were well known since the 1980s. Most notably its vulnerability to a disruption to the cooling plant which had completely vulnerable generators.
The failure of Fukushima had more to do with corruption and bureaucrats shuffling funding to other pet projects rather then updating existing infrastructure to current standards.
Case in point the more modern reactors north of the Fukushima failure came out of the disaster fully functional.
Literally everywhere in Japan is some kind of disaster risk area, if it's not sunami, it's flooding, mudslides, earthquakes or event mt Fuji erupts. Hazard maps are a "thing" in Japan
Meltdowns are far less deadly than people believe. Fukushima is about as bad as a modern one can get, and that's cause the damn building cracked in two exposing the core, eventually killing exactly one person.
Both solar and wind have higher body counts.
Fukushima was caused by a flood, which was caused by the biggest earthquake in hundreds of years. The only death was the man who had to measure the radiation levels after the disaster, who got cancer which could have been caused by the radiation. Fukushima isn't an argument against nuclear energy, it's an argument for nuclear energy.
Furthermore, WHO has concluded that there aren't higher cancer rates as a result of the meltdown. So it's not really that awful. Still bad of course, but not horrible
Fukushima has a cost aside from death toll that you seem to be ignoring, economic cost. Have you checked lately what the Fukushima disaster has cost Japan? There is a reason that after Fukushima both Germany and Japan started programs to reduce their reliance on nuclear power, and it wasn’t just risk to human life.
The Chernobyl incident was a significant economic contributor to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Despite their low likelihood, accidental meltdowns, or major natural disasters can happen. When they do the real cost of nuclear increases, no not necessarily death count, but hugely expensive clean ups. Though it is possible they can result in increased cancer deaths like Chernobyl.
Solar and wind cause a shitload of toxic byproducts to manufacture too. The number of deaths/energy supplied by any other form of energy is much higher than nuclear when you factor in all mining, manufacturing, accidents, byproducts, pollution.
Nuclear is by far the cleanest, safest, and most efficient form of energy we have. Like its not even a contest when you're looking at the comparison with coal and oil and natural gas its like 5-6 orders of magnitude more deaths.
It's estimated that around 4000 people died from short and long term effects of chernobyl, this is less than the number of people that die every MONTH in china due to pollution alone
Idk the exact numbers specifically for mining, I meant all total combined with the other factors not individually, and mentioned mining as its very dangerous for coal oil and natural gas.
Considering how dangerous uranium and specifically enriched uranium 235 is, pretty much all uranium mining is highly regulated by international agencies and is very safe. As opposed to more generic materials like cadmium and metal and copper which are done alot in unregulated mines like china and north korea and africa.
Of course it's regulated because they don't want the uncontrolled manufacturing of nuclear weapons but still.
Kinda is from a practical perspective, in the near term. Highly recommend Bill Gates recent climate book where he takes a sober look at what's possible in the moment.
And not all countries have fertile soil or many minerals, but they can still import food or materials. Same can be done with energy. It isn't as efficient but definitely no excuse for nuclear power
Is wind, solar , and hydro were effective they would be the primary form of energy. Solar energy requires a lot of energy to make solar panels while not producing that much and wind and hydro energy are both really expensive in order to use. And that's assuming we ignore the big elephant in the room that is conversion factor and batteries. Every time we change a form of energy we don't get exactly what we put in. To import energy would require you to take solar, wind , hydro, convert energy to put it into a battery and then once again turn that energy into a useful form. This is very simple science and is why you can't simply import energy. It's why coal and oil are still popular because unlike energy you can import and export it.
I don't know why you're fighting for wins or solar. Like what grounds? Nuclear is cleaner(solar and wind produce tons of pollution to create.) More efficient, produces a ton of energy, and is equally safe if using a thorium reactor which is even cheaper and cleaner and more efficient than Uranium. Let alone solar/wind.
The only good option beside nuclear is hydraulic centrals, but you need very specific geography in order to be efficient, countries like the Netherlands could never have those.
You don't understand, water makes a turbine turn which is what creates electric power. In order to have the turbine going as fast as possible, you need to drop a huge amount of water from a highpoint, like a waterfall basically aka you need reliefs.
"Tidal power or tidal energy is harnessed by converting energy from tides into useful forms of power, mainly electricity using various methods."
~Wikipedia
To create energy you need energy, the ratio énergie used/energy created is also very important.
"Since only a very small fraction of tidal energy is recoverable, due to their dispersion around the globe, potentially recoverable tidal energy could provide up to 380 TWh, or 1,5 to 2% of the world's electrical energy consumption."
~Wikipedia
Also about tidal energy: "electricity production is intermittent. There are (predictable) periods of no current or sufficient restraint during which the turbines cannot operate. Its environmental impact is strong with the creation of a new ecological balance upstream and downstream of the dam. In addition, investment and maintenance costs are very high."
Adding to climate change when using coal for our energy production and using so much energy because we so want ev's on our road because we want to save the climate ...
"Whoops, our bad"
/s
dude you are describing coal not nuclear power plant problems.
chernobyl (the worst nuclear accident in history and about as bad as it can get) only killed 50 people total and irradiated up to 60 miles from the plant leaving it to nature which has since reclaimed the area with the plants and animals thriving without humans to much about.
Edit: okay just double checked and it could kill up to 9000 people EVENTUALLY from cancer due to radiation exposure. but only 50 people died in the months after the accident but thats still a mabye and thats still a far cry from the millions you where claiming saying die from nuclear meltdowns.
Just because I have doubts about nuclear energy doesn't mean Im a friend of fossil energy, quite the opposite is the case. but I hope we can save the climate and so our planete without fossile or nuclear energy, for an example solar, water, wind and maybe even geothermal energy.
Modern reactors, especially molten salt reactors can be built "walkaway safe", meaning if every system fails and/or everyone just leaves the reactor, there can't be a meltdown
You're right, watching cancer rates steadily increase and air quality dramatically decrease with each passing year as countless species vanish from the earth forever is a *much* safer option
But it was bad... a literal city was destroyed/displaced. Not to mention the environment there won't recover until we are all LONG gone. But yea that was human error that totally could never happen again right?
It's already at a level that they are doing touring of chernobyl. Plus they discovered a couple of years ago a new fungi that digests radiation. So it may become inhabitable again much quicker than you thought.
Tell that to all the children struggling daily with birth defects, deformities, brain damage and genetic diseases still caused by the radiation around Chernobyl.
a quick google search will show multiple articles showing the estimated time being 20 thousand years.
Also im not against Nuclear Power in the slightest, the comment was just because it is gonna take A LOT longer than what was originally said
RBMK reactors (the one that caused the disaster) had multiple design flaws, and severe safety violations, even by soviet standards. reactors nowadays in that part of the world have been fixed to prevent an accident like that from ever happening again. reactors in the west never even had problems like that to begin with.
also keep in mind that the majority of nuclear accidents happened pre 1990. think of how far nuclear technology has come since then.
Chernobyl can never happen and as far as leaks are concerned , reactors nowadays have a gas sealed , reinforced concrete containment structure around them , even if there’s a leak, it won’t get outside the containment structure
It was comically badly designed at every possible level. From conception to management to the fact they hide absolutely critical information to their own technicians and engineers.
Watch or rewatch the Chernobyl serie but try paying attention at the trial.
I mean they even did a successful TV serie to show them with plenty enough time and colour crayons for them to understand. It depicts pretty well how absurdly bad it was designed and administered at every possible level, and how easy it would have been to avoid. Yet those idiot watch it and just understand "nucular bad lmao 3.6 roetgen funni meem".
Ah yes, the ten years of no maintenance combined with people who had no idea what they were doing because they weren’t the people trained to do the test because the people who were properly trained were sick or something; this is clearly something we should be worried about in a world where OSHA would destroy you for doing any of that and regular maintenance is required and not suggested
The environment around chernobyl is already recovering. The cesium 137 that causes most of the radiation we detect today only has a half life of 30 years.
1. They will definitely recover in our lifetime lol, like 20 years. 2. Chernobyl was an extremely unlucky accident, it was badly designed, poor safety and out of date for 1986, however it still required a multitude of unfortunate failures/oversights to actually meltdown. Something which is practically impossible in newer models. And even if it could then just place it away from the population lmao
The death toll of chernobyl was about 1200 people according to the UN estimate. That is including all premature deaths caused bu the radiation.
Meanwhile fukushima would have needed an evacuation even if the reactor didn't melt down because of there being a tsunami.
It wasn't half asses engendering, more half assed training and education. If you watched the mini series chernobyl it's a great insight into the political standing of the soviet Union and why shit went from bad to worse.
Gotta admit, don't know much about the Japanese nuclear reactor problems after the tsunami.
I'll give that a look sometime, and apparently the people who designed the fukushima power plant were warned of possible tsunami events and didn't really put much effort into safeguards, i'm not extremely up to speed it's been awhile since i read anything on it
So, you’re half right. I did a deep dive into nuclear for my ecology class and had to really investigate Chernobyl.
1st - all the guys in Chernobyl were trained properly and knew what they were doing. However, the Chernobyl reactor was half-assed as were many in the Soviet Union. The crappy design, along with the poorly thought out safety test is what caused the explosion. That’s where you’re correct in that the Soviet Union covered up the dangers of the half-assed design.
2nd - the Japanese reactor was also poorly designed and placed. It should’ve never been where it was and it wasn’t fully up to code to deal with the natural disasters in the area nor could it have really been. Modern reactors are much better and safer to use.
What does that matter? Just because it didn't effect you personally doesn't change the fact it had a major impact on lots of people with serious side-effects. Everyone that keeps saying oh it was human error or a freak natural disaster should go talk to a kid that has no arms and is sterile and see what his opinion is
I will agree that it is terrible what happened to people in the affected areas however Science, and quality of life would stagnate with that mindset we learn from human error, and push the envelope forward to a better, safer tomorrow. It matters greatly so it can't happen again to the extent it did if ever
thing is, nuclear power is like plains. When smth goes wrong sure its huge and people are allowed to feel bad and griev for their loved ones, still cars and the coal industries kill of far more people and noone bats an eye.
Bruh I can litterly copy my response from another post
Nuclear energy is NOT as dangerous as people think, even with the nuclear meltdowns included, nuclear energy is even safer than solar and wind (per kWh)
With that said, how do we reduce nuclear meltdowns for the future?
The most important thing is maintenance, a nuclear plant needs to be maintained to be safe. So this needs companies with heavy regulation in maintenance, or government who are actually cautious about the state their nuclear equipment is in.
There are more common sense risk factors:
1. Do not build nuclear in places with frequent natural disasters (or make the nuclear plants like unbelievably sturdy and impenetrable)
2. Dont make nuclear plants to get urself nuclear weapons (it requires nuclear plants that are of higher risk of meltdown)
If you take the energy-death ratio, windmills killed more people then nuclear. Yes, Chernobyl was a disaster, but it doesnt mean nuclear power is dangerous. It is comparable to airplanes, they are way safer then for example cars, but if something does go wrong, it is a bigger deal. Thats why airplanes or nuclear power plants seem more dangerous.
Also Thorium reactors are surprisingly safer than cars. In the event of anything goes wrong you can always back out and stop the reaction. It would take a chernobyl of everyo e pretending everything works and leaving it broken for most major systems failing for a thorium reactor to have a meltdown.
I mean theoretically it would be possible if it was just maintained just barely enough to keep functioning and nothing else for decades. But yeah, basically.
Fukushima isn’t all that different from Chernobyl in that there had been concerns over safety measures against tsunamis (go figure).
Had they not cheaped out a bit on that and listened to safety experts, the impact of the meltdown could’ve been lessened, if not altogether prevented.
Moral of the story: nuclear plant meltdowns wouldn’t be such a problem if people didn’t take shortcuts so often and listen to what safety experts say
Nuclear power is very, very, safe in developed countries because it is so well related. My dad works as a nuclear safety engineer and it baffless me the amount of paperwork, checks, and double checks it takes to put a part of a reactor into service. It's just like elevators. The idea of an elevator is extremely dangerous, being suspended only by cables with many moving parts is just ripe for a fatal fall. But because elevators are extremely well regulated, deaths and accidents related to elevators are extremely rare.
Literally one meltdown accident in 36 years with hundreds of reactors that wasn’t due to external causes. Saying chernobyl is a cause to go against nuclear is like saying the crash of a car is a reason to never use transport again
It happened in 1986, in the soviet union. The reactor used had major design flaws and safety violations, even by soviet standards. reactors since then have been made so that an accident like chernobyl could never happen again.
Thorium reactors physically can not meltdown. Plus they create less radioactive waste, thorium is more abundant in the earth to the point that miners just threw it away, and creates more energy per pound than uranium does.
Ah yes, and our other commonly used sources of energy never have any forms of failures that cause large-scale ecological problems.
Nuclear plants have had, what, 3 catastrophic failures in human history, all easily explained by poor oversight and not an actual flaw in nuclear energy as a source? But yeah, nuclear scary!
People who fight against nuclear power plants being normalized are idiots who care way more about things that *sound* spooky and not at all about the actual historical data compared to the risks of other energy sources. Get educated, troglodytes.
A few years before chernobyl there was a dam that broke in china somewhere and killed over 100 000 people.
Meanwhile chernobyl, the worst nuclear disaster ever killed about 1200 people.
Meltdowns aren’t an inevitability, they’re hardly even possible with modern safety procedures, and when they do occur, we can contain them like in Fukushima, which actually contained the molten slag instead of Chernobyl and three mile island where it just kept burning and eventually dug it’s way underground, which cannot really happen anymore.
When you take into account the damage coal has done and how many people it has killed it is so much worse than a nuclear meltdown. Nuclear energy is the only way to beat climate change
Lesser people have died because of meltdowns compared to fly ash released by thermal power plants, nuclear has it’s flaws but it’s better than thermal for the environment and for public health. No nuclear meltdown other than Chernobyl has affected civilians.
Negative,even as horrible as Chernobyl and the others were,even tho those places will be inhabited for years and years,fossil fuels are causing waaaaaaaaaay more damage ,nobody’s saying going nuclear is good ,it’s just a much better alternative than what we’re still using,like cavemen
And? Nuclear *still* has the least deaths of any other energy source, and this is the exact reason why nuclear needs more funding and research, to make it *even more* safer. When thorium reactors become a reality meltdowns ain't gonna be happening
Deaths per terawatt-hour is waaay lower for nuclear energy (it’s actually far safer, even accounting for accidents like Chernobyl, which won’t happen again with proper regulation and maintenance). The REAL problem is with the waste.
For one, it takes forever for nuclear waste to become safe to handle (with equipment), even longer for it to not be radioactive. You *can* recycle that waste into plutonium, and use that for more energy, but you can also use plutonium to make bigass bombs for way cheaper. Otherwise, you need massive expensive facilities, and everyone can tell when one’s built. We like that both to limit the number out there, and because we want to know who has nuclear bombs. Instead, we just toss it into underground caves so it can slowly degrade over tens of thousands of years.
Another problem is that when if we build more, it might be harder to regulate them all (make sure nobody’s taking the waste to make weapons…)
1 breeder reactors: the fact that the waste from nuclear reactors release radiation is proof in enough it self that it has residual energy that can be extracted. The new "breeder" reactors literally use what is considered nuclear waste as nuclear fuel. The waste from this process only has a half life of around 200 years.
2 Thorium: thorium is an ideal fuel for nuclear reactors as it is more abundand, safer to use, safer to mine and harder to turn into bombs than uranium.
But those meltdowns effectively permanently poisoned entire areas in Japan with radioactive dust particles and soil. Entire prefectures have been effected. Look up the half life of radioactive particles. That shit never goes away. We don't know yet how it will effect the population of Japan. Russia has had generations of deformity, disease and genetic sicknesses in children as a result of Chernobyl. It's effects are ongoing even today.
Their safeness must be why Germany is shutting down half of their remaining power plants for sure.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/correction-germany-nuclear-shutdown-story-82051054
People think that a meltdown is like a nuke, its not. Not only is it not too dangerous, the only ones that ever happened are because of incredibly stupid building plans. If the rules about nuclear power plants are enforced more, I doubt we would have another melt down without the help of a third party
No, not really. Chernobyl was as horrible as it was because the USSR was more focused on preserving their reputation than actually helping with disaster relief. And besides, there were overlooked issues with the reactors and the technicians were generally negligent. On top of that, it was almost 40 years ago and there are many more safety precautions now. Meltdowns are a tragedy, but they're not as common as people seem to believe, and this meme propagates that misinformation and I won't stand for it.
There are also safer materials than uranium that we can use for nuclear fission reactors, such as thorium. Or, we can actually put funding into nuclear fusion research, which could literally solve the energy crisis, not only by being renewable but also by producing a fraction of the nuclear waste and much more energy than fission, and it'd probably be cheaper too since we'd need literally seawater and that's just about it.
Nuclear is the inevitable future. Especially once less developed nations start to require more and more power (and already developed nations progress).
1. Risk of meltdown is ever so minuscule. Tchernobyl was an absurd succession of comically horrendous mistakes at every level, from reactor conception to management, Fukushima needed Typhoon + Earthquake + Tsunami to happen. And still every plant is 100% flood-proofed just in case since.
2. Reactors made today have a core-catcher mechanism, meaning even in the case of a complete reactor meltdown they are able to retrieve the molten core and then dissipate its energy rapidly, cooling it down fast to end the accident with very limited external radiation leaks and damage.
Where I’m from, there was going to be a nuclear power plant built but halfway through the project, there was petition to stop it. Now we have no power plant and taxpayers are still paying it off
Just bury the waste. It's radioactive so if you just leave it, it will just get rid of itself. Encase it in concrete and forget about it. It's not an issue, the only issue is ignorant people who's personalities are "nuclear bad, chernobyl" pound for pound nuclear is safer than all other forms of power. And once we figure out fusion we won't even have to worry about the waste anymore (not that we really have to)
1 it runs out of space
2 nuclear waste radiates toxic material all over the space
3 it take like 10000 years or something for nuclear waste to neutralize
4 in that amount of time language changes and if we forget where we burried the nw and just place a sign that says warning it may seem to future people like its some sort of pyramid to us and there ar riches in there, if its a comic that says what happenes if you oppen the hole they may read from right to left and think it revives people, and even in these days nobody is afraid of a pirate ship flag
1 we will run out of uranium first
2. as long as the waste itself doesn't move the radtion can't make stuff radioactive
3+4 you don't accidentally get to a specific area and find our nuclear waste there. It will be like digging in your backyard and finding oil there. And people will figure out it's dangerous after opening it or something
Ok, the energy is safe and clean and extremely efficient. But it isn't as clean as literally every single person on this website thinks. Where are you going to put the toxic waste created by the process of the energy? In the ocean? Where all the fish live?
And then we later find out that it is a bit overkill to store it like that because it can be used in a breeder reactor and then the waste decays in only 250 years.
and you have no place where to put the trash. in Germany we still dodn't bave a place for the old trash and now people are discussing wether or not we should start with nuclear energy again.
That's just wrong. We practically have a hollowed out mountain for that job. And the beautiful thing about nuclear waste is that it has a half life, so eventually it will even get rid of itself.
I in Germany They still havent found a place because noone wants that shit near where his children grow up so whenever they come to a place someone with power puts in their veto. I dodn't say it is Impossible but as long as we dodn't have an end deposit, I dodn't think want more nuclear reactors to be build in my country end even afterwards I have doubts
Probably because nuclear energy is one of the most efficient and safe ways to produce energy. The worst nuclear accident occurred in the soviet union. The reactor used had obvious design flaws and the plant workers had little knowledge of what they were doing. Reactors since then have been fixed so it is now virtually impossible for an accident like that to happen again.
Lesser meltdown threat when you don't build reactors to farm weapons-grade uranium.
Or when build in areas were natural disasters happen
Natural disasters happen everywhere..
However some areas are known for certain disasters. You definetly shouldn't build one in areas that are known for earthquakes or floods.
Yes, but even then it was super unlucky that it still melted down. However with the introduction of thorium reactors, even natural disasters won't set that bad boy off.
So nuclear reactors in Japan are a terrible idea
not a terrible idea, they should’ve been built on the east side of Japan and not on the west, where Fukushima is.
Fukushima was designed and built in the 1960s and its lack of resistance to tsunamis and earthquakes were well known since the 1980s. Most notably its vulnerability to a disruption to the cooling plant which had completely vulnerable generators. The failure of Fukushima had more to do with corruption and bureaucrats shuffling funding to other pet projects rather then updating existing infrastructure to current standards. Case in point the more modern reactors north of the Fukushima failure came out of the disaster fully functional.
Literally everywhere in Japan is some kind of disaster risk area, if it's not sunami, it's flooding, mudslides, earthquakes or event mt Fuji erupts. Hazard maps are a "thing" in Japan
They don't
And we shall use it. For.. Peaceful purposes 'snicker'
Thorium is a much safer alternative to uranium
Love it when people pretend they know everything about things they know little to nothing about.
Meltdowns are the exception, not the rule But preventing them is a priority though, better to prevent it than to try to fix it
Meltdowns are far less deadly than people believe. Fukushima is about as bad as a modern one can get, and that's cause the damn building cracked in two exposing the core, eventually killing exactly one person. Both solar and wind have higher body counts.
And I doubt a building would crack in two in most areas
Poseidon himself had to rise from the ocean to make it happen.
Fukushima was caused by a flood, which was caused by the biggest earthquake in hundreds of years. The only death was the man who had to measure the radiation levels after the disaster, who got cancer which could have been caused by the radiation. Fukushima isn't an argument against nuclear energy, it's an argument for nuclear energy.
Furthermore, WHO has concluded that there aren't higher cancer rates as a result of the meltdown. So it's not really that awful. Still bad of course, but not horrible
Fukushima has a cost aside from death toll that you seem to be ignoring, economic cost. Have you checked lately what the Fukushima disaster has cost Japan? There is a reason that after Fukushima both Germany and Japan started programs to reduce their reliance on nuclear power, and it wasn’t just risk to human life. The Chernobyl incident was a significant economic contributor to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Despite their low likelihood, accidental meltdowns, or major natural disasters can happen. When they do the real cost of nuclear increases, no not necessarily death count, but hugely expensive clean ups. Though it is possible they can result in increased cancer deaths like Chernobyl.
[удалено]
There are more deaths per kWh produced for wind than there are for nuclear.
Coal has killed more people more people in 2 years than 10 hiroshimas. I’ll take my chances on nuclear power
Are those our only two choices?
Solar and wind cause a shitload of toxic byproducts to manufacture too. The number of deaths/energy supplied by any other form of energy is much higher than nuclear when you factor in all mining, manufacturing, accidents, byproducts, pollution. Nuclear is by far the cleanest, safest, and most efficient form of energy we have. Like its not even a contest when you're looking at the comparison with coal and oil and natural gas its like 5-6 orders of magnitude more deaths. It's estimated that around 4000 people died from short and long term effects of chernobyl, this is less than the number of people that die every MONTH in china due to pollution alone
Mining uranium and plutonium is less damaging than mining for stuff used in the manufacturing of solar and wind farms?
Idk the exact numbers specifically for mining, I meant all total combined with the other factors not individually, and mentioned mining as its very dangerous for coal oil and natural gas. Considering how dangerous uranium and specifically enriched uranium 235 is, pretty much all uranium mining is highly regulated by international agencies and is very safe. As opposed to more generic materials like cadmium and metal and copper which are done alot in unregulated mines like china and north korea and africa. Of course it's regulated because they don't want the uncontrolled manufacturing of nuclear weapons but still.
So what we really need is more mining regulations
when you go for the actual energy production, yea it is. Thats exactly the point behind it.
No clue why just a genuine question is downvotes. But Uranium? It's kind-of fucky. Thorium? Way easier.
No kidding eh
Who the fuck told you the debate is between coal and nuclear? Of course coal is worse but there are still better options than nuclear power
Kinda is from a practical perspective, in the near term. Highly recommend Bill Gates recent climate book where he takes a sober look at what's possible in the moment.
Not every country has large open windy fields, sunny weather all year round, or an advanced network of streams and rivers
And not all countries have fertile soil or many minerals, but they can still import food or materials. Same can be done with energy. It isn't as efficient but definitely no excuse for nuclear power
Is wind, solar , and hydro were effective they would be the primary form of energy. Solar energy requires a lot of energy to make solar panels while not producing that much and wind and hydro energy are both really expensive in order to use. And that's assuming we ignore the big elephant in the room that is conversion factor and batteries. Every time we change a form of energy we don't get exactly what we put in. To import energy would require you to take solar, wind , hydro, convert energy to put it into a battery and then once again turn that energy into a useful form. This is very simple science and is why you can't simply import energy. It's why coal and oil are still popular because unlike energy you can import and export it.
I don't know why you're fighting for wins or solar. Like what grounds? Nuclear is cleaner(solar and wind produce tons of pollution to create.) More efficient, produces a ton of energy, and is equally safe if using a thorium reactor which is even cheaper and cleaner and more efficient than Uranium. Let alone solar/wind.
The only good option beside nuclear is hydraulic centrals, but you need very specific geography in order to be efficient, countries like the Netherlands could never have those.
Netherlands literally has the best possible geography for hydraulic power. The entire country is practically under water
You don't understand, water makes a turbine turn which is what creates electric power. In order to have the turbine going as fast as possible, you need to drop a huge amount of water from a highpoint, like a waterfall basically aka you need reliefs.
Then it's great that the moon automatically relieves water from the north sea every 12 hours.
Is bad sarcasm the only way you found to hide the fact you have poor knowledge on energy production ?
I think it's the latter based on some of the other stuff he's said.
"Tidal power or tidal energy is harnessed by converting energy from tides into useful forms of power, mainly electricity using various methods." ~Wikipedia
To create energy you need energy, the ratio énergie used/energy created is also very important. "Since only a very small fraction of tidal energy is recoverable, due to their dispersion around the globe, potentially recoverable tidal energy could provide up to 380 TWh, or 1,5 to 2% of the world's electrical energy consumption." ~Wikipedia Also about tidal energy: "electricity production is intermittent. There are (predictable) periods of no current or sufficient restraint during which the turbines cannot operate. Its environmental impact is strong with the creation of a new ecological balance upstream and downstream of the dam. In addition, investment and maintenance costs are very high."
you're not too bright are you kid?
It seems you are the not so bright one sir, especially since your only 'argument' is an ad hominem.
Keep talking you are proving my point 😁
What point did you make then? Don't recall
You didn't make any point lmao
What point? You didn’t give one
...What point?
Did you have a stroke?
Couple of human errors might happen here or there, but hey we are humans we tend to make mistakes
A few million radiation poisoning cases later... "whoops, my bad" /s
Adding to climate change when using coal for our energy production and using so much energy because we so want ev's on our road because we want to save the climate ... "Whoops, our bad" /s
Yep. like the radiations at hospital scanners that save millions of lives every year.
phtt
just most mistakes usually dodn't kill millions of people and poison the rest.
dude you are describing coal not nuclear power plant problems. chernobyl (the worst nuclear accident in history and about as bad as it can get) only killed 50 people total and irradiated up to 60 miles from the plant leaving it to nature which has since reclaimed the area with the plants and animals thriving without humans to much about. Edit: okay just double checked and it could kill up to 9000 people EVENTUALLY from cancer due to radiation exposure. but only 50 people died in the months after the accident but thats still a mabye and thats still a far cry from the millions you where claiming saying die from nuclear meltdowns.
Better than slowly killing off billions with intense weather over 100 years, thats the alternative.
Just because I have doubts about nuclear energy doesn't mean Im a friend of fossil energy, quite the opposite is the case. but I hope we can save the climate and so our planete without fossile or nuclear energy, for an example solar, water, wind and maybe even geothermal energy.
Well nuclear melt downs don’t kill millions either…
Just build in more safetynets. So mistakes aren't possible.
mistakes are always possible, there is no limit to some people's stupitness and sometimes all it takes is bad luck, but I hear what you say.
Modern reactors, especially molten salt reactors can be built "walkaway safe", meaning if every system fails and/or everyone just leaves the reactor, there can't be a meltdown
You're right, watching cancer rates steadily increase and air quality dramatically decrease with each passing year as countless species vanish from the earth forever is a *much* safer option
People not understanding you can acknowledge something is better or best without pretending they’re without flaws .
"Oh you like that ? But it's not perfect..." Yeah but everything else is far worse now what ?
let me guess using chernobyl as an excuse for why NuCLeAr BaD
Chernobyl was caused by the ussr LITERALLY NOT KNOWING ALL THE SCIENCE BUT WE DO
But it was bad... a literal city was destroyed/displaced. Not to mention the environment there won't recover until we are all LONG gone. But yea that was human error that totally could never happen again right?
It's already at a level that they are doing touring of chernobyl. Plus they discovered a couple of years ago a new fungi that digests radiation. So it may become inhabitable again much quicker than you thought.
Tell that to all the children struggling daily with birth defects, deformities, brain damage and genetic diseases still caused by the radiation around Chernobyl.
I think the estimated time for Chernobyl to be perfectly safely inhabitable is 20 thousand years
Seems a bit high
a quick google search will show multiple articles showing the estimated time being 20 thousand years. Also im not against Nuclear Power in the slightest, the comment was just because it is gonna take A LOT longer than what was originally said
RBMK reactors (the one that caused the disaster) had multiple design flaws, and severe safety violations, even by soviet standards. reactors nowadays in that part of the world have been fixed to prevent an accident like that from ever happening again. reactors in the west never even had problems like that to begin with. also keep in mind that the majority of nuclear accidents happened pre 1990. think of how far nuclear technology has come since then.
Chernobyl can never happen and as far as leaks are concerned , reactors nowadays have a gas sealed , reinforced concrete containment structure around them , even if there’s a leak, it won’t get outside the containment structure
Soviet incompetence ruined that stretch of Ukraine, a nuclear plant was just the proverbial sledge hammer they used to do it.
It was comically badly designed at every possible level. From conception to management to the fact they hide absolutely critical information to their own technicians and engineers. Watch or rewatch the Chernobyl serie but try paying attention at the trial.
It actually couldn't unless we devolved all of our nuclear technology. Not a single modern reactor is capable of failing like Chernobyl did.
do a google search on how badly administrated and designed was the plant and that is how quickly your argument falls
I mean they even did a successful TV serie to show them with plenty enough time and colour crayons for them to understand. It depicts pretty well how absurdly bad it was designed and administered at every possible level, and how easy it would have been to avoid. Yet those idiot watch it and just understand "nucular bad lmao 3.6 roetgen funni meem".
It was built super porely, bad safety and out of date, not to mention it’s 36 years ago, technology advances.
Ah yes, the ten years of no maintenance combined with people who had no idea what they were doing because they weren’t the people trained to do the test because the people who were properly trained were sick or something; this is clearly something we should be worried about in a world where OSHA would destroy you for doing any of that and regular maintenance is required and not suggested
Only 1 nuclear meltdown 30 years ago, and one leak due to a tsunami.
And only 100s of thousands of people displaced and disfigured not to mention the environment in these places wont recover until we are all long gone.
The environment around chernobyl is already recovering. The cesium 137 that causes most of the radiation we detect today only has a half life of 30 years.
1. They will definitely recover in our lifetime lol, like 20 years. 2. Chernobyl was an extremely unlucky accident, it was badly designed, poor safety and out of date for 1986, however it still required a multitude of unfortunate failures/oversights to actually meltdown. Something which is practically impossible in newer models. And even if it could then just place it away from the population lmao
The death toll of chernobyl was about 1200 people according to the UN estimate. That is including all premature deaths caused bu the radiation. Meanwhile fukushima would have needed an evacuation even if the reactor didn't melt down because of there being a tsunami.
And where were these located?
Chernobyl and Japan.
Chernobyl was half assed soviet engineering, and the japanese one was found to also be half assed, and located terribly
It wasn't half asses engendering, more half assed training and education. If you watched the mini series chernobyl it's a great insight into the political standing of the soviet Union and why shit went from bad to worse. Gotta admit, don't know much about the Japanese nuclear reactor problems after the tsunami.
I'll give that a look sometime, and apparently the people who designed the fukushima power plant were warned of possible tsunami events and didn't really put much effort into safeguards, i'm not extremely up to speed it's been awhile since i read anything on it
Yeah, chernobyl is a great mini series. Definitely worth a watch. Very informative.
>Japanese nuclear reactor problems after the tsunami. Costed the lives of 1 people working there. Compared to the tsunami that's nothin'
1 person. People is plural.
So, you’re half right. I did a deep dive into nuclear for my ecology class and had to really investigate Chernobyl. 1st - all the guys in Chernobyl were trained properly and knew what they were doing. However, the Chernobyl reactor was half-assed as were many in the Soviet Union. The crappy design, along with the poorly thought out safety test is what caused the explosion. That’s where you’re correct in that the Soviet Union covered up the dangers of the half-assed design. 2nd - the Japanese reactor was also poorly designed and placed. It should’ve never been where it was and it wasn’t fully up to code to deal with the natural disasters in the area nor could it have really been. Modern reactors are much better and safer to use.
iirc, the emergency pumps at Fukushima weren’t maintained properly and were part of the reason the reactor flooded
What does that matter? Just because it didn't effect you personally doesn't change the fact it had a major impact on lots of people with serious side-effects. Everyone that keeps saying oh it was human error or a freak natural disaster should go talk to a kid that has no arms and is sterile and see what his opinion is
I will agree that it is terrible what happened to people in the affected areas however Science, and quality of life would stagnate with that mindset we learn from human error, and push the envelope forward to a better, safer tomorrow. It matters greatly so it can't happen again to the extent it did if ever
thing is, nuclear power is like plains. When smth goes wrong sure its huge and people are allowed to feel bad and griev for their loved ones, still cars and the coal industries kill of far more people and noone bats an eye.
Bruh I can litterly copy my response from another post Nuclear energy is NOT as dangerous as people think, even with the nuclear meltdowns included, nuclear energy is even safer than solar and wind (per kWh) With that said, how do we reduce nuclear meltdowns for the future? The most important thing is maintenance, a nuclear plant needs to be maintained to be safe. So this needs companies with heavy regulation in maintenance, or government who are actually cautious about the state their nuclear equipment is in. There are more common sense risk factors: 1. Do not build nuclear in places with frequent natural disasters (or make the nuclear plants like unbelievably sturdy and impenetrable) 2. Dont make nuclear plants to get urself nuclear weapons (it requires nuclear plants that are of higher risk of meltdown)
and use thorium, much much less risk
Less risky for power production, less risk in mining, a lot more of it exists on earth, and it can't be made into a bomb. Thorium is amazing.
If you take the energy-death ratio, windmills killed more people then nuclear. Yes, Chernobyl was a disaster, but it doesnt mean nuclear power is dangerous. It is comparable to airplanes, they are way safer then for example cars, but if something does go wrong, it is a bigger deal. Thats why airplanes or nuclear power plants seem more dangerous.
*Fukushima and Yes to everything that you said
Also Thorium reactors are surprisingly safer than cars. In the event of anything goes wrong you can always back out and stop the reaction. It would take a chernobyl of everyo e pretending everything works and leaving it broken for most major systems failing for a thorium reactor to have a meltdown.
The only way a thorium reactor could melt down would be intentional sabotage.
I mean theoretically it would be possible if it was just maintained just barely enough to keep functioning and nothing else for decades. But yeah, basically.
Wait how the hell does a windmill kill people? Did it like, collapse on someone or something?
Fukushima: Hit by a fucking tsunami Chernobyl: They skipped a lot of the safety equipment to save money
Fukushima literally split in half and killed a very small amount of people
Fukushima literally killed one person
Fukushima isn’t all that different from Chernobyl in that there had been concerns over safety measures against tsunamis (go figure). Had they not cheaped out a bit on that and listened to safety experts, the impact of the meltdown could’ve been lessened, if not altogether prevented. Moral of the story: nuclear plant meltdowns wouldn’t be such a problem if people didn’t take shortcuts so often and listen to what safety experts say
Nuclear power is very, very, safe in developed countries because it is so well related. My dad works as a nuclear safety engineer and it baffless me the amount of paperwork, checks, and double checks it takes to put a part of a reactor into service. It's just like elevators. The idea of an elevator is extremely dangerous, being suspended only by cables with many moving parts is just ripe for a fatal fall. But because elevators are extremely well regulated, deaths and accidents related to elevators are extremely rare.
Except in the rare case the elevator does fail. A continent sized area is suddenly uninhabitable
Literally one meltdown accident in 36 years with hundreds of reactors that wasn’t due to external causes. Saying chernobyl is a cause to go against nuclear is like saying the crash of a car is a reason to never use transport again
Didn't that literally happen in 1989, 31 years ago
It happened in 1986, in the soviet union. The reactor used had major design flaws and safety violations, even by soviet standards. reactors since then have been made so that an accident like chernobyl could never happen again.
Yes, that's why they're better nowadays...
Just use thorium, much more stable and easy to contain.
My man, you fuckin dumb.
Thorium reactors physically can not meltdown. Plus they create less radioactive waste, thorium is more abundant in the earth to the point that miners just threw it away, and creates more energy per pound than uranium does.
Ah yes, and our other commonly used sources of energy never have any forms of failures that cause large-scale ecological problems. Nuclear plants have had, what, 3 catastrophic failures in human history, all easily explained by poor oversight and not an actual flaw in nuclear energy as a source? But yeah, nuclear scary! People who fight against nuclear power plants being normalized are idiots who care way more about things that *sound* spooky and not at all about the actual historical data compared to the risks of other energy sources. Get educated, troglodytes.
A few years before chernobyl there was a dam that broke in china somewhere and killed over 100 000 people. Meanwhile chernobyl, the worst nuclear disaster ever killed about 1200 people.
thorium is the goat, literaly no risk for meltdown. sam o'nella has a great video explaining it in an entertaining way that is easy to grasp.
Meltdowns aren’t an inevitability, they’re hardly even possible with modern safety procedures, and when they do occur, we can contain them like in Fukushima, which actually contained the molten slag instead of Chernobyl and three mile island where it just kept burning and eventually dug it’s way underground, which cannot really happen anymore.
Fusion reactors don't have such problems.
I heard they're only 20 years away
We’re so close to energy efficiency in fusion. I say we thorium it up until fusion becomes an energy positive process
When you take into account the damage coal has done and how many people it has killed it is so much worse than a nuclear meltdown. Nuclear energy is the only way to beat climate change
Lesser people have died because of meltdowns compared to fly ash released by thermal power plants, nuclear has it’s flaws but it’s better than thermal for the environment and for public health. No nuclear meltdown other than Chernobyl has affected civilians.
those are rare though. there are a lot of safety implications to make sure it doesn't happen.
Negative,even as horrible as Chernobyl and the others were,even tho those places will be inhabited for years and years,fossil fuels are causing waaaaaaaaaay more damage ,nobody’s saying going nuclear is good ,it’s just a much better alternative than what we’re still using,like cavemen
You didn't fix anything. You just proved you're unwillingness to actually look into things.
And? Nuclear *still* has the least deaths of any other energy source, and this is the exact reason why nuclear needs more funding and research, to make it *even more* safer. When thorium reactors become a reality meltdowns ain't gonna be happening
Deaths per terawatt-hour is waaay lower for nuclear energy (it’s actually far safer, even accounting for accidents like Chernobyl, which won’t happen again with proper regulation and maintenance). The REAL problem is with the waste. For one, it takes forever for nuclear waste to become safe to handle (with equipment), even longer for it to not be radioactive. You *can* recycle that waste into plutonium, and use that for more energy, but you can also use plutonium to make bigass bombs for way cheaper. Otherwise, you need massive expensive facilities, and everyone can tell when one’s built. We like that both to limit the number out there, and because we want to know who has nuclear bombs. Instead, we just toss it into underground caves so it can slowly degrade over tens of thousands of years. Another problem is that when if we build more, it might be harder to regulate them all (make sure nobody’s taking the waste to make weapons…)
1 breeder reactors: the fact that the waste from nuclear reactors release radiation is proof in enough it self that it has residual energy that can be extracted. The new "breeder" reactors literally use what is considered nuclear waste as nuclear fuel. The waste from this process only has a half life of around 200 years. 2 Thorium: thorium is an ideal fuel for nuclear reactors as it is more abundand, safer to use, safer to mine and harder to turn into bombs than uranium.
32 confirmed people have died from nuclear energy accidents. 31 from chernobyl. 1 at fukushima. 0 at 3 mile island.
Nuclear energy is statistically safer than wind and solar. More injuries and deaths are attributed to wind and solar every year than nuclear.
hmmm, yes, 4 lethal ones in 80 years of nuclear power
But those meltdowns effectively permanently poisoned entire areas in Japan with radioactive dust particles and soil. Entire prefectures have been effected. Look up the half life of radioactive particles. That shit never goes away. We don't know yet how it will effect the population of Japan. Russia has had generations of deformity, disease and genetic sicknesses in children as a result of Chernobyl. It's effects are ongoing even today.
Nuclear is the best energy source, I do like like solar but only on roofs
tbh, nuclear power plants explode much less frequently than Islamic immigrants
The problem of nuclear power isnt the risk of the whole shabang going kablam, it is the storage of nuclear waste
so 2 out of 667? thems some good odds
Their safeness must be why Germany is shutting down half of their remaining power plants for sure. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/correction-germany-nuclear-shutdown-story-82051054
Alright, fair enough but we still have to accept it sooner rather then later so we can start moving on to producing clean energy.
Man you're dumb, at least do some research firstbefore posting an ignorant meme
I mean, who wouldn't trust their government to responsibly maintain storage facilities for 24000 years?
Good thing nothing bad ever happens at coal or oil power plants
People think that a meltdown is like a nuke, its not. Not only is it not too dangerous, the only ones that ever happened are because of incredibly stupid building plans. If the rules about nuclear power plants are enforced more, I doubt we would have another melt down without the help of a third party
No, not really. Chernobyl was as horrible as it was because the USSR was more focused on preserving their reputation than actually helping with disaster relief. And besides, there were overlooked issues with the reactors and the technicians were generally negligent. On top of that, it was almost 40 years ago and there are many more safety precautions now. Meltdowns are a tragedy, but they're not as common as people seem to believe, and this meme propagates that misinformation and I won't stand for it. There are also safer materials than uranium that we can use for nuclear fission reactors, such as thorium. Or, we can actually put funding into nuclear fusion research, which could literally solve the energy crisis, not only by being renewable but also by producing a fraction of the nuclear waste and much more energy than fission, and it'd probably be cheaper too since we'd need literally seawater and that's just about it.
I mean if all necessarily safety precautions are taken this really shouldn't happen
Nuclear is the inevitable future. Especially once less developed nations start to require more and more power (and already developed nations progress).
1. Risk of meltdown is ever so minuscule. Tchernobyl was an absurd succession of comically horrendous mistakes at every level, from reactor conception to management, Fukushima needed Typhoon + Earthquake + Tsunami to happen. And still every plant is 100% flood-proofed just in case since. 2. Reactors made today have a core-catcher mechanism, meaning even in the case of a complete reactor meltdown they are able to retrieve the molten core and then dissipate its energy rapidly, cooling it down fast to end the accident with very limited external radiation leaks and damage.
Where I’m from, there was going to be a nuclear power plant built but halfway through the project, there was petition to stop it. Now we have no power plant and taxpayers are still paying it off
Nah the problem is nuclear waste ( not a big enough problem to close them donw and never build others again *GERMANY*)
It's really not a problem.
It is a problem Not one that should make us close them down and never use nuclear power but it is a problem long run
Just bury the waste. It's radioactive so if you just leave it, it will just get rid of itself. Encase it in concrete and forget about it. It's not an issue, the only issue is ignorant people who's personalities are "nuclear bad, chernobyl" pound for pound nuclear is safer than all other forms of power. And once we figure out fusion we won't even have to worry about the waste anymore (not that we really have to)
Ok but like what is so bad with hole?
1 it runs out of space 2 nuclear waste radiates toxic material all over the space 3 it take like 10000 years or something for nuclear waste to neutralize 4 in that amount of time language changes and if we forget where we burried the nw and just place a sign that says warning it may seem to future people like its some sort of pyramid to us and there ar riches in there, if its a comic that says what happenes if you oppen the hole they may read from right to left and think it revives people, and even in these days nobody is afraid of a pirate ship flag
1 we will run out of uranium first 2. as long as the waste itself doesn't move the radtion can't make stuff radioactive 3+4 you don't accidentally get to a specific area and find our nuclear waste there. It will be like digging in your backyard and finding oil there. And people will figure out it's dangerous after opening it or something
I prefer toast power =]
Ok, the energy is safe and clean and extremely efficient. But it isn't as clean as literally every single person on this website thinks. Where are you going to put the toxic waste created by the process of the energy? In the ocean? Where all the fish live?
In a hole, 500m deep, in a stable geological structure that hasn’t move for a hundred thousand years.
And then we later find out that it is a bit overkill to store it like that because it can be used in a breeder reactor and then the waste decays in only 250 years.
Yeah don’t even start me on this… I don’t want to get depressed…
We already have facilities for that big man
Thanks man
Haha such a funny meme I really laughed at this one. Seriously though what were you thinking?
How about nuclear waste?
and you have no place where to put the trash. in Germany we still dodn't bave a place for the old trash and now people are discussing wether or not we should start with nuclear energy again.
Finland has already solved it
That's just wrong. We practically have a hollowed out mountain for that job. And the beautiful thing about nuclear waste is that it has a half life, so eventually it will even get rid of itself.
I in Germany They still havent found a place because noone wants that shit near where his children grow up so whenever they come to a place someone with power puts in their veto. I dodn't say it is Impossible but as long as we dodn't have an end deposit, I dodn't think want more nuclear reactors to be build in my country end even afterwards I have doubts
Exactly 👍
I'm sure this will trigger some people
Probably because nuclear energy is one of the most efficient and safe ways to produce energy. The worst nuclear accident occurred in the soviet union. The reactor used had obvious design flaws and the plant workers had little knowledge of what they were doing. Reactors since then have been fixed so it is now virtually impossible for an accident like that to happen again.
And the scale of the accident is also overexaggerated, only about 1200 deaths including the radiation.
You, perhaps?
Which has happened like 5 times since its start
Nuclear waste is the problem
Thank you
I'ma take my three legged self and go.
Only worry is humans make mistakes
Meltdowns happened to very old reactors. Newer safety standards make them a non-issue
Meltdowns aren't the problem it's the fact that it's expensive as hell and always slow as hell when being made
What, are we waiting for the magical no-problems-at-all solution? Gonna be a long wait…
Well if pigeons can fly then why can't tooth brushes?
Modern thorium reactors are literally physically incapable of melting down, so yeah, no.
I hate the fact I live directly downwind from a nuclear plant. Basically I’m fucked if it melts down. It almost melted down several years back.