▲ 308 ▼ New technology could reduce radioactivity in nuclear waste by up to 80% (alpha.leofinance.io) submitted 1 year ago by Merlu@lemmy.ml to c/upliftingnews@lemmy.world 106 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] x00z@lemmy.world 62 points 1 year ago (3 children) Yeah things blow up I would stop them right there and ask when the last oil spill was. It was last month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 27 points 1 year ago Even without oil spills. The fossil fuel method of dealing with waste is to vent it into the atmosphere. Nuclear only does that when something goes very wrong, and even then it causes significantly fewer fatalities. You could have a Chernobyl every single day and still kill fewer people than coal and oil. permalink fedilink source parent [–] starlinguk@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) Why do you think that those against nuclear energy are for fossil fuels? My building has solar panels, and backup power comes from either wind turbines or the hydraulic dam down the river. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* The overwhelming resistance to nuclear is pushed by people who want us to stay on fossil fuels, and the number of people suggesting renewables usally state their preferences in the comments alongside their criticism (whether the criticism is valid or not). permalink fedilink source parent [+] SARGE@startrek.website 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev -3 points 1 year ago* (1 child) one dangerous thing being less unsafe than another doesn't make it safe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SARGE@startrek.website 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) yeah, decentralised photovoltaic- & -thermic cells, wind and river turbines, biomass. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Solar's a little bit less killy than nuclear (people die when mining raw materials and from falling off rooftops when installing panels) and wind turbines are a little more dangerous than nuclear (mining raw materials, falls during installation/maintenance and people burning to death during maintenance), but hydroelectric power is much more dangerous than nuclear (mainly from drownings after dams burst). Until very recently, nuclear was the safest means of power generation by a wide margin, so if safety is the main concern, there should be a lot more of it. A big reason for this is that a single nuclear power plant can power a city despite having the same footprint as a small village worth of wind turbines or solar panels and running for decades off a wheelbarrow of fuel, so there's much less for construction workers and miners to do and fewer opportunities for them to die. It only kills when there's an accident bad enough to make international news and remain in the public consciousness for decades, and accidents that bad have only happened a handful of times. permalink fedilink source parent [–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Biomass is not sustainable. You'll cut your forests down to sate demand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago it was an intendendly brief answer. and of course the biomass that is a product of other processes is being used. we don't have woods left in europe and forests are needed for wood production. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 27 points 1 year ago Even without oil spills. The fossil fuel method of dealing with waste is to vent it into the atmosphere. Nuclear only does that when something goes very wrong, and even then it causes significantly fewer fatalities. You could have a Chernobyl every single day and still kill fewer people than coal and oil. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] starlinguk@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) Why do you think that those against nuclear energy are for fossil fuels? My building has solar panels, and backup power comes from either wind turbines or the hydraulic dam down the river. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* The overwhelming resistance to nuclear is pushed by people who want us to stay on fossil fuels, and the number of people suggesting renewables usally state their preferences in the comments alongside their criticism (whether the criticism is valid or not). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* The overwhelming resistance to nuclear is pushed by people who want us to stay on fossil fuels, and the number of people suggesting renewables usally state their preferences in the comments alongside their criticism (whether the criticism is valid or not). permalink fedilink source parent
[+] SARGE@startrek.website 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev -3 points 1 year ago* (1 child) one dangerous thing being less unsafe than another doesn't make it safe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SARGE@startrek.website 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) yeah, decentralised photovoltaic- & -thermic cells, wind and river turbines, biomass. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Solar's a little bit less killy than nuclear (people die when mining raw materials and from falling off rooftops when installing panels) and wind turbines are a little more dangerous than nuclear (mining raw materials, falls during installation/maintenance and people burning to death during maintenance), but hydroelectric power is much more dangerous than nuclear (mainly from drownings after dams burst). Until very recently, nuclear was the safest means of power generation by a wide margin, so if safety is the main concern, there should be a lot more of it. A big reason for this is that a single nuclear power plant can power a city despite having the same footprint as a small village worth of wind turbines or solar panels and running for decades off a wheelbarrow of fuel, so there's much less for construction workers and miners to do and fewer opportunities for them to die. It only kills when there's an accident bad enough to make international news and remain in the public consciousness for decades, and accidents that bad have only happened a handful of times. permalink fedilink source parent [–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Biomass is not sustainable. You'll cut your forests down to sate demand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago it was an intendendly brief answer. and of course the biomass that is a product of other processes is being used. we don't have woods left in europe and forests are needed for wood production. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev -3 points 1 year ago* (1 child) one dangerous thing being less unsafe than another doesn't make it safe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SARGE@startrek.website 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) yeah, decentralised photovoltaic- & -thermic cells, wind and river turbines, biomass. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Solar's a little bit less killy than nuclear (people die when mining raw materials and from falling off rooftops when installing panels) and wind turbines are a little more dangerous than nuclear (mining raw materials, falls during installation/maintenance and people burning to death during maintenance), but hydroelectric power is much more dangerous than nuclear (mainly from drownings after dams burst). Until very recently, nuclear was the safest means of power generation by a wide margin, so if safety is the main concern, there should be a lot more of it. A big reason for this is that a single nuclear power plant can power a city despite having the same footprint as a small village worth of wind turbines or solar panels and running for decades off a wheelbarrow of fuel, so there's much less for construction workers and miners to do and fewer opportunities for them to die. It only kills when there's an accident bad enough to make international news and remain in the public consciousness for decades, and accidents that bad have only happened a handful of times. permalink fedilink source parent [–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Biomass is not sustainable. You'll cut your forests down to sate demand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago it was an intendendly brief answer. and of course the biomass that is a product of other processes is being used. we don't have woods left in europe and forests are needed for wood production. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] SARGE@startrek.website 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) yeah, decentralised photovoltaic- & -thermic cells, wind and river turbines, biomass. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Solar's a little bit less killy than nuclear (people die when mining raw materials and from falling off rooftops when installing panels) and wind turbines are a little more dangerous than nuclear (mining raw materials, falls during installation/maintenance and people burning to death during maintenance), but hydroelectric power is much more dangerous than nuclear (mainly from drownings after dams burst). Until very recently, nuclear was the safest means of power generation by a wide margin, so if safety is the main concern, there should be a lot more of it. A big reason for this is that a single nuclear power plant can power a city despite having the same footprint as a small village worth of wind turbines or solar panels and running for decades off a wheelbarrow of fuel, so there's much less for construction workers and miners to do and fewer opportunities for them to die. It only kills when there's an accident bad enough to make international news and remain in the public consciousness for decades, and accidents that bad have only happened a handful of times. permalink fedilink source parent [–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Biomass is not sustainable. You'll cut your forests down to sate demand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago it was an intendendly brief answer. and of course the biomass that is a product of other processes is being used. we don't have woods left in europe and forests are needed for wood production. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) yeah, decentralised photovoltaic- & -thermic cells, wind and river turbines, biomass. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Solar's a little bit less killy than nuclear (people die when mining raw materials and from falling off rooftops when installing panels) and wind turbines are a little more dangerous than nuclear (mining raw materials, falls during installation/maintenance and people burning to death during maintenance), but hydroelectric power is much more dangerous than nuclear (mainly from drownings after dams burst). Until very recently, nuclear was the safest means of power generation by a wide margin, so if safety is the main concern, there should be a lot more of it. A big reason for this is that a single nuclear power plant can power a city despite having the same footprint as a small village worth of wind turbines or solar panels and running for decades off a wheelbarrow of fuel, so there's much less for construction workers and miners to do and fewer opportunities for them to die. It only kills when there's an accident bad enough to make international news and remain in the public consciousness for decades, and accidents that bad have only happened a handful of times. permalink fedilink source parent [–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Biomass is not sustainable. You'll cut your forests down to sate demand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago it was an intendendly brief answer. and of course the biomass that is a product of other processes is being used. we don't have woods left in europe and forests are needed for wood production. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Solar's a little bit less killy than nuclear (people die when mining raw materials and from falling off rooftops when installing panels) and wind turbines are a little more dangerous than nuclear (mining raw materials, falls during installation/maintenance and people burning to death during maintenance), but hydroelectric power is much more dangerous than nuclear (mainly from drownings after dams burst). Until very recently, nuclear was the safest means of power generation by a wide margin, so if safety is the main concern, there should be a lot more of it. A big reason for this is that a single nuclear power plant can power a city despite having the same footprint as a small village worth of wind turbines or solar panels and running for decades off a wheelbarrow of fuel, so there's much less for construction workers and miners to do and fewer opportunities for them to die. It only kills when there's an accident bad enough to make international news and remain in the public consciousness for decades, and accidents that bad have only happened a handful of times. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) Biomass is not sustainable. You'll cut your forests down to sate demand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago it was an intendendly brief answer. and of course the biomass that is a product of other processes is being used. we don't have woods left in europe and forests are needed for wood production. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago it was an intendendly brief answer. and of course the biomass that is a product of other processes is being used. we don't have woods left in europe and forests are needed for wood production. permalink fedilink source parent