637
Nuclear fusion reaction releases almost twice the energy put in (www.newscientist.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
344 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

That’s why there were no incidents in Japan a decade ago. Especially not after multiple reports of potential danger 🤷‍♂️.

Oh yes let's do this. Thousands of plants across the world operating for multiple decades and you mention something the exposed people to less radiation than you get on a 4 hour flight. Omg something isn't perfect! Wow we should give you an award.

have the same reserves as the person you commented on. “We” may have great agencies working to prevent issues, but it’s not the case everywhere in the world

Which is why there are international bodies.

And if you want to use fission as a solution for climate change, you need to have every developing country to use it too, whatever the stability of the region.

Citation needed. Please show me multiple peer reviewed studies that back up this claim. There are 190 countries or so please show me how it physically impossible that if each and every single one of them doesn't have a nuclear reactor themselves climate change can't be worked on at all, not even slightly.

Just look at Ukraine where the safety of one their reactor is on the line because of the war, and the mines Russia put all over.

Yeah maybe Russia shouldn't have invaded.

Chernobyl 2.0 if things go wrong :(

No. Very different plant design, but you knew that. Just hoping that I didn't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah sure, the Fukushima region is/was thriving and people were happy to live next to a nuclear disaster. The cleanup will take another decade and lots of money. It's not just about the immediate radiation.

    International bodies, like the ones that (afaik) can't access Iran's nuclear enrichment plants anymore ? Sure it may be more related to nuke production, and that's a tangential problem.

    Stand off your high horse and your hyperboles. I didn't say that it was impossible to work on climate change without 190 going nuclear. However it's ignoring that most pollution comes from developing countries, countries that do not want to sacrifice their development, and would need nuclear or renewable. Guess what is cheaper and safer?

    For Ukraine, yeah, but did you or I have a say in this war ? Do we have a say on Russia preventing 90% of workers that know the plant to go to work ? No such risk with renewables (except maybe hydro, as shown by Russia too).

    Did I say that the plant would explode exactly like Chernobyl? No. The plant can be a disaster if one or multiple missiles hit it, with the mines and explosives reported as being set everywhere. Could the plant resist such impacts ? Probably, maybe. Do I care to find out ? No thanks.

    Don't bother to respond if you are to take this discussion in bad faith. We can discuss things like adults without being hurt by the other side having a different opinion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    More gish gallop from the coal lobby.

    the Fukushima region is/was thriving and people were happy to live next to a nuclear disaster. The cleanup will take another decade and lots of money.

    I have worked on a Superfund site that is going to extend past 100 years, but your ten years is soooo impressive to me.

    International bodies, like the ones that (afaik) can’t access Iran’s nuclear enrichment plants anymore ?

    Yeah organized religion is shit not sure what you want from me. Maybe we can ban religion and ban your coal employers.

    Sure it may be more related to nuke production, and that’s a tangential problem.

    But you sure as hell brought it up.

    Stand off your high horse and your hyperboles. I didn’t say that it was impossible to work on climate change without 190 going nuclear. However it’s ignoring that most pollution comes from developing countries, countries that do not want to sacrifice their development, and would need nuclear or renewable. Guess what is cheaper and safer?

    Don't lie it is unbecoming of even a lobbyist.

    For Ukraine, yeah, but did you or I have a say in this war ? Do we have a say on Russia preventing 90% of workers that know the plant to go to work ? No such risk with renewables (except maybe hydro, as shown by Russia too).

    Well it certainly didn't help that thanks to Big Fossil Fuels Russia has a natural gas stranglehold on Europe. Maybe if stopped listening to coal lobby people on the internet and built nuclear Russia would have backed off.

    Did I say that the plant would explode exactly like Chernobyl? No. The plant can be a disaster if one or multiple missiles hit it, with the mines and explosives reported as being set everywhere. Could the plant resist such impacts ? Probably, maybe. Do I care to find out ? No thanks.

    Again with the lies from Big Coal

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •