You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
50 points

I’m pro nuke energy but to pretend there are no downsides is what got us into the climate mess we are in in the first place.

Cost, being a major drawback, space being another. And of course while they almost never fail, they do occasionally, and will again. And those failures are utterly catastrophic, and it’d hard to convince a community to welcome a nuclear plant, and if the community doesn’t want it then it can’t or shouldn’t be forced onto them.

They also represent tactical strike sites in time of combat engagement. Big red X for a missile.

There are also significant environmental concerns, as we really have no good way to dispose of nuclear waste in a safe or efficient manner at this time.

It’s likely that nuclear based energy is the future, but you need to discuss the bad with the good here or we are just going to end up at square one again. There are long term ramifications.

permalink
report
reply
13 points

Worth noting that all modern failures have been GE models or ancient Westinghouse models. Modern nuclear reactors built by Westinghouse are virtually immune from meltdown, and Westinghouse is the lead player in new builds. Nuclear safety has come miles since the like of Fukushima, and especially 3 Mile Island. I’d feel perfectly safe living near a new Westinghouse nuclear plant.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

I’d rather a nuclear plant as my neighbor rather than a coal or natural gas one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

One has a one in a million chance to kill you. The other has a 100 in 100 chance to cause you severe health issues in the longrun.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

There’s always a way to fail. Always.

There are no unsinkable ships. No matter how safe the Titanic is, keep enough of them on the sea and one will eventually sink the way least people expected. If life on Earth depends on a Titanic never sinking…we’re fucked eventually.

Life on Earth depends on no more than a couple on nuclear plants blowing up catastrophically.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Wdym space with nuclear energy?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Nuke energy! Actually, don’t. We need it.

They also represent tactical strike sites in time of combat engagement. Big red X for a missile.

Practice shows that in land wars instead of big X it is just burden for both sides. I’m talking Putin-Ukraine war.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That’s a single single war, and not indicative, power supply remains and always has been a high priority target.

Just cause putin and Kiev avoid chernobyl isn’t really evidence to the contrary

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

power supply remains and always has been a high priority target.

I’m not denying this. But mostly power distribution instead of power generation was targeted.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I agree with everything you say. It really is spot on. What I don’t understand is how, with your awareness, do you still consider yourself pro-nuclear. Honest question, I really am curious.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

This is a shocker for many on social media but you can accept that something you want is not perfect but still want it, or see good in a bad person, but still not want them on the throne.

Just because I can be realistic about it’s pros and cons instead of blindly parroting that I have been told to parrot doesn’t mean I can’t be pro nuclear.

Other power sources have more problems. And I say just launch the waste into space and eventually the reactors will just be out of the stratosphere and it won’t matter if it explodes.

But you got to walk before you can run.

I just dislike when people pretend there are no downside to nuke, EV, wind, etc, because if they make one little comment on a con suddenly they’re some anti enviro Trump sucker and get dogpiled

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

There’s a difference in something being not perfect and being fundamentally flawed. My confusion is because you perfectly verbalized why I think it’s flawed.

I could understand being in favor of using nuclear temporarily until renewables are more reliable. I don’t agree but I understand the thought process. It’s a calculated risk, an acceptable gamble. But being aware of all the issues with nuclear and still be in favor of it long term, in my opinion, doesn’t make sense.

Mind you, I’m not trying to attack you, I’m genuinely intrigued and curious.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

And I say just launch the waste into space

This immediately discards like, everything you’ve said up until now, though. It matters if it explodes on the way up challenger style and irradiates half of the continent with a massive dirty bomb of nuclear waste. It’s way more cost effective, efficient, and safer to just put it somewhere behind a big concrete block and then pay some guy to watch it 24/7, and make sure the big concrete block doesn’t crack open or suffer from water infiltration or whatever.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Memes

!memes@lemmy.ml

Create post

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

Community stats

  • 12K

    Monthly active users

  • 5.7K

    Posts

  • 37K

    Comments