As the title says, I’m interested in this community’s perceptions on nuclear energy.

  • VenDiagraphein@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Personally, as it currently stands, no. But it could potentially be, given better waste treatment practices and far better regulation and consistently enforced safety requirements.

    It’s far greener than fossil fuels, when run carefully at least. But between the persistent issues with waste reclamation and harmful leakage, and the massive amount of damage that can be done when mistakes are made or safety is overlooked, I don’t think it qualifies as “green”.

    So from a practical standpoint, I still think new resources are better spent developing infrastructure for solar, wind, geothermal, etc. But as we are phasing out other power sources, pretty much everything else should go before we start to decommission nuclear.

    • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      When compared to something like a coal fired power station, they too can cause similar levels of unthinkable damage when things go wrong but with the added damage whilst they operate. Nothing feels ideal at this stage and not to say it classes them as green or clean, but the bar is pretty low for improvement as it stands.

  • carbonbasedlifeform@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I see nuclear as a transitory source of energy. It doesn’t emit any greenhouse gases and FAR better than fossil fuels. We could easily transition to it faster and more cheaply than solar, wind, etc currently. Deaths associated with fossil fuel energy greatly exceed those associate with nuclear energy.

    Burning fossil fuels needs to stop and we need to bring down carbon levels to what they were 20+ years ago. Ideally, transitioning to nuclear would be cheap/fast while we build out solar and wind infrastructure, and research how to make these sources of energy more effective.

    However, I’m not a policy nor energy expert by any means. I’m just some random person on the internet.

    • poVoq@slrpnk.netM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Practical experience shows that nuclear is neither cheap or fast, with ongoing constructions being massively delayed and way over budget.

      I would have agreed with you 20 years ago, but now we have way better alternatives and nuclear is too slow to make a difference.

      • carbonbasedlifeform@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        NIMBY is also another factor that delays new nuclear plants. That said, safety is another big concern here. Although not at an nuclear energy facility, there was that incident recently at Los Alamos National Laboratory researching nuclear weapons where they placed 8 rods of plutonium next to each other that could have triggered a disaster. Very high safety standards are required, and humans are known for making stupid decisions.

        • greengnu@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Well there is a very good reason why modern nuclear reactors have a negative void coefficient (you just turn off the neutron source and the reactor naturally turns itself off

          Or if really paranoid have a supply of Xenon-135 handy and that reactor will be shutdown in microseconds (which by the way is naturally produced by the reactor itself and why early prototype rectors kept turning themself off after running for a bit)