▲ 988 ▼ Anon questions our energy sector (slrpnk.net) submitted 2 years ago by MataVatnik@lemmy.world to c/science_memes@mander.xyz 382 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Batbro@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) I guess destroy != Make unlivable permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (2 children) People don't put reactors next to cities for a reason. Meaning this scenario wouldn't happen. Nuclear is also one of the safest energy sources overall in terms of deaths caused. It's safer than some renewables even, and that's not factoring in advances in the technology that have happened over the decades making it safer. This kind of misinformation is dangerous. It's also not a good reason not to do nuclear. The reason why renewables are used more (and probably have a somewhat larger role to play in general) is because they a cheaper and quicker to manufacture. Nuclear energy's primary problem isn't safety but rather cost. It's biggest strength is reliability and availability. You can build a nuclear plant basically anywhere where there is water. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Batbro@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I know nuclear is super safe but we have actual examples of accidents happening and making cities unlivable, you can't deny that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which cities? I haven't heard of any cities being made unlivable, only towns and villages. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Batbro@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 🙄 I'm sorry, I was unaware of the population requirement permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* You do know what a city is, right? The regulations on nuclear are also around population density if I remember. So it is literally a requirement that says you can't build reactors in high population density areas. permalink fedilink source parent [–] whome@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Depends on where you live, Germany that gets the beating for phasing out nuclear, is so densely populated that these remote areas hardly exist! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago That's actually an interesting point. Maybe we shouldn't put nuclear reactors in Germany. permalink fedilink source parent [–] bouh@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) And that cannot happen. It's a fear people have because they equate a nuclear power plant with a nuclear bomb. That is as wrong as considering the earth flat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Chernobyl But that was a really old tech, the plants built after 1990s shouldn't allow this scale of pollution even if all the stops are pulled and everything breaks in the worst way possible permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bouh@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Chernobyl yes, let's talk about it : after the catastrophy, 2 reactors were used until very recently (like until 10 or 20 years ago). After the catastrophy, Chernobyl was made into an exclusion zone where people wouldn't be allowed to live. But people came back 10 years after and it's a small village now. BTW even Hiroshima and Nagazaki that were annihilated with atomic bombs, that is weapons meant to destroy whole cities, were quickly inhabited again. So much for the permanent destruction and millions of years of contamination. CO2 is a far more deadly compound for mankind than any radioactive material. Anti-nuke militants are merely ignorant fanatics. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Batbro@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Fukushima? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bouh@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Fukushima, in 2024,is a city of 272569 inhabitants. If that's unlivable, I'm fine with it. Hiroshima, Nagazaki and Chernobyl are all inhabited too. Saying that nuclear stuff makes places unlivable is plain wrong, it's anti-science. It's comics level of bullshit science. Travel in time is a more serious theory than nuclear stuff destroying the planet. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (2 children) People don't put reactors next to cities for a reason. Meaning this scenario wouldn't happen. Nuclear is also one of the safest energy sources overall in terms of deaths caused. It's safer than some renewables even, and that's not factoring in advances in the technology that have happened over the decades making it safer. This kind of misinformation is dangerous. It's also not a good reason not to do nuclear. The reason why renewables are used more (and probably have a somewhat larger role to play in general) is because they a cheaper and quicker to manufacture. Nuclear energy's primary problem isn't safety but rather cost. It's biggest strength is reliability and availability. You can build a nuclear plant basically anywhere where there is water. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Batbro@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I know nuclear is super safe but we have actual examples of accidents happening and making cities unlivable, you can't deny that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which cities? I haven't heard of any cities being made unlivable, only towns and villages. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Batbro@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 🙄 I'm sorry, I was unaware of the population requirement permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* You do know what a city is, right? The regulations on nuclear are also around population density if I remember. So it is literally a requirement that says you can't build reactors in high population density areas. permalink fedilink source parent [–] whome@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Depends on where you live, Germany that gets the beating for phasing out nuclear, is so densely populated that these remote areas hardly exist! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago That's actually an interesting point. Maybe we shouldn't put nuclear reactors in Germany. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Batbro@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I know nuclear is super safe but we have actual examples of accidents happening and making cities unlivable, you can't deny that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which cities? I haven't heard of any cities being made unlivable, only towns and villages. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Batbro@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 🙄 I'm sorry, I was unaware of the population requirement permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* You do know what a city is, right? The regulations on nuclear are also around population density if I remember. So it is literally a requirement that says you can't build reactors in high population density areas. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which cities? I haven't heard of any cities being made unlivable, only towns and villages. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Batbro@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 🙄 I'm sorry, I was unaware of the population requirement permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* You do know what a city is, right? The regulations on nuclear are also around population density if I remember. So it is literally a requirement that says you can't build reactors in high population density areas. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Batbro@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) 🙄 I'm sorry, I was unaware of the population requirement permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* You do know what a city is, right? The regulations on nuclear are also around population density if I remember. So it is literally a requirement that says you can't build reactors in high population density areas. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* You do know what a city is, right? The regulations on nuclear are also around population density if I remember. So it is literally a requirement that says you can't build reactors in high population density areas. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] whome@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Depends on where you live, Germany that gets the beating for phasing out nuclear, is so densely populated that these remote areas hardly exist! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago That's actually an interesting point. Maybe we shouldn't put nuclear reactors in Germany. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago That's actually an interesting point. Maybe we shouldn't put nuclear reactors in Germany. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bouh@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) And that cannot happen. It's a fear people have because they equate a nuclear power plant with a nuclear bomb. That is as wrong as considering the earth flat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Chernobyl But that was a really old tech, the plants built after 1990s shouldn't allow this scale of pollution even if all the stops are pulled and everything breaks in the worst way possible permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bouh@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Chernobyl yes, let's talk about it : after the catastrophy, 2 reactors were used until very recently (like until 10 or 20 years ago). After the catastrophy, Chernobyl was made into an exclusion zone where people wouldn't be allowed to live. But people came back 10 years after and it's a small village now. BTW even Hiroshima and Nagazaki that were annihilated with atomic bombs, that is weapons meant to destroy whole cities, were quickly inhabited again. So much for the permanent destruction and millions of years of contamination. CO2 is a far more deadly compound for mankind than any radioactive material. Anti-nuke militants are merely ignorant fanatics. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Batbro@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Fukushima? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bouh@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Fukushima, in 2024,is a city of 272569 inhabitants. If that's unlivable, I'm fine with it. Hiroshima, Nagazaki and Chernobyl are all inhabited too. Saying that nuclear stuff makes places unlivable is plain wrong, it's anti-science. It's comics level of bullshit science. Travel in time is a more serious theory than nuclear stuff destroying the planet. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Chernobyl But that was a really old tech, the plants built after 1990s shouldn't allow this scale of pollution even if all the stops are pulled and everything breaks in the worst way possible permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bouh@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Chernobyl yes, let's talk about it : after the catastrophy, 2 reactors were used until very recently (like until 10 or 20 years ago). After the catastrophy, Chernobyl was made into an exclusion zone where people wouldn't be allowed to live. But people came back 10 years after and it's a small village now. BTW even Hiroshima and Nagazaki that were annihilated with atomic bombs, that is weapons meant to destroy whole cities, were quickly inhabited again. So much for the permanent destruction and millions of years of contamination. CO2 is a far more deadly compound for mankind than any radioactive material. Anti-nuke militants are merely ignorant fanatics. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bouh@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Chernobyl yes, let's talk about it : after the catastrophy, 2 reactors were used until very recently (like until 10 or 20 years ago). After the catastrophy, Chernobyl was made into an exclusion zone where people wouldn't be allowed to live. But people came back 10 years after and it's a small village now. BTW even Hiroshima and Nagazaki that were annihilated with atomic bombs, that is weapons meant to destroy whole cities, were quickly inhabited again. So much for the permanent destruction and millions of years of contamination. CO2 is a far more deadly compound for mankind than any radioactive material. Anti-nuke militants are merely ignorant fanatics. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Batbro@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Fukushima? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bouh@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Fukushima, in 2024,is a city of 272569 inhabitants. If that's unlivable, I'm fine with it. Hiroshima, Nagazaki and Chernobyl are all inhabited too. Saying that nuclear stuff makes places unlivable is plain wrong, it's anti-science. It's comics level of bullshit science. Travel in time is a more serious theory than nuclear stuff destroying the planet. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bouh@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Fukushima, in 2024,is a city of 272569 inhabitants. If that's unlivable, I'm fine with it. Hiroshima, Nagazaki and Chernobyl are all inhabited too. Saying that nuclear stuff makes places unlivable is plain wrong, it's anti-science. It's comics level of bullshit science. Travel in time is a more serious theory than nuclear stuff destroying the planet. permalink fedilink source parent
