- cross-posted to:
- Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/68257855
Nuclear is the best btw.
You must log in or # to comment.
Ah, that must be why first world countries like France are trying to export their nuclear waste into third world countries, after they were forced to stop exporting it into Russia…
If it’s so safe, why have they been closing down every single high level waste permanent storage site over the last decade?
because ppl act over irrational fear and lobby their politicians to close perfectly safe sites.
Riiiight people are protesting for no reason…
The French government has yet to authorize Cigéo’s construction, and now the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) and the Institute for Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) have raised concerns about the design. Although it acknowledges overall progress, IRSN questions whether the sealing would be a strong enough barrier and says ANDRA needs to do more to reduce the risk of radioactive leaks. The agency also needs to improve its strategies to monitor risks and to rehabilitate the facility in case of radioactive spills, IRSN says. Perhaps the biggest problem, however, is medium-level radioactive sludge immobilized in bitumen, or tar, a technique introduced in the 1960s that has now been abandoned. IRSN says that in case of fire in a tunnel, bituminized waste could rapidly overheat and burn. “We would risk creating a phenomenon that we don’t know how to stop,” and trigger “a very substantial” release of radioactivity into the environment, says François Besnus, director of IRSN’s Environment Division in Fontenay-aux-Roses. Both agencies say ANDRA and the producers of nuclear waste need to study treatments that prevent overheating; if that fails, a major redesign of the facility may be needed.
…
Others say the risks are simply too high. Radiation will break down water in the rock and cause corrosion of metal structures, leading to the release of explosive hydrogen gas, says biologist and engineer Bertrand Thuillier, an associate professor at the University of Lille. ANDRA plans to ventilate the tunnels, but that could exacerbate fires by providing oxygen, he says. A failure could be catastrophic, Thuillier warns: The area around Bure helps provide eastern Paris with water and is close to one of the world’s most cherished wine regions, Champagne.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.357.6354.858
Edit: and just so we’re clear, this is “the biggest, most complex and costliest nuclear decommissioning and radioactive waste management programme on earth.” With planned cost between 23 and 54 bilion €
Trust me bro, nuclear power is clean, I read it on reddit or some shit idk
I’m surprised by all the angry comments of people on this thread, people don’t realize the true potential modern nuclear energy has, to produce a lot of energy and just right besides where that energy is needed, one of the biggest problems of renewables is that you don’t get to choose where they are produced, so in most cases it implies transmission lines, very high capacity ones and very long ones, my country recently had a country wide outage caused by the failure of one of those that caused a cascading failure.
I’m not saying that renewables aren’t incredible tech, they are, they really do, like they’re one of the best sources of energy available, but they aren’t perfect, and them being complemented with nuclear would do a big deal of good, as I said before nuclear has it’s own unique strengths that can help out a lot.
And also I see a lot of people here talking from outright ignorance about the state of the arts of the tech, it has advanced a lot since the 1950’s lol, and repeat the same arguments, forever debunked, people do about nuclear that frustrating, Fukushima and Chernobyl were both plants with stupidly old tech, run by clowns and ignoring really well known risks for the sake of the lulz, even when all nuclear accidents combined, the tech has killed a fraction of people than what hidro has killed, modern tech is heaps more advanced and has included everything needed for that sort of accident to be impossible, even nuclear waste is a solved problem, the only thing stopping it from fully materializing is political will (Altough is kind of a blessing in hiding because now tech to use spent fuel seems to be the future also).
IDK, people do disappoint on their ignorance.
I’m surprised by all the angry comments period.
I thought this was a meme instance lol, I never took it as a prompt for serious debate on fossil fuels vs nuclear energy (as if there are zero clean alternatives)
Which country was that? I am only aware of the large outage in southern Europe which was due to fossil plants not following regulations.
chile lol, it was a crazy experience it lasted long enough for the cell network to fail, I was fortunately in home but it was chaotic for people going home at the time, the goverment ordered a curfew to be had at night so people also were in a hurry, and it was quite a thing lol, I only had the radio left to inform myself on what was happening and it was crazy stuff hearing how they talked about the efforts to cold start the grid back again, they had to do like 3 attempts before success, “the Rapel dam is on maximum power, trying to provide energy to x power plan who then may be able to provide energy to…”
BREATHE*
More and more words are apparently becoming to hard to use correctly for a big part of people online. This is one that I almost never saw anyone getting wrong until a couple of years ago and it’s becoming more and more common, same with writing “cloth/cloths” instead of “clothe/clothes”. It’s infuriating.
pro-nuke when you tell them nuclear energy is fossil fuel energy: 😡
*wind and solar are unarguably the best energy sourcrs, and the only sustainable ones.
it isn’t tough, fossil fuel implies hydrocarbons, as that’s where the fossil part comes from.
Nuclear fuel is non renewable but it is also clean.
It’s clean regarding chemical waste.
I’ve helped build nuclear waste caskets, nothing is perfect but the amount of attention put into making it safe is incredible! The layers (and quality) of stainless steel welds would put your average steel bridge to shame…
But fission will always be limited (as in non-renewable). If everything was powered by nuclear, I’m sure we’d see even more awefull mining operations. Also, fusion should in theory be much better, if the thermodynamics of it end up working.
fusion 100% is the future whenever it’s figured out.
But I’m not as scared as mining, my country has a lot of mining operations, mostly copper, but the modern tech they have is quite incredible, they use robots to mine, wich are safely controlled in an office building in the city.
Nuclear is the best btw
Naw. I was once enrolled in an Energy/Climate-focussed Masters degree, and scientific consensus for the goal generally seemed to range from “mostly renewables + a tiny bit of nuclear” to “all renewables”. Nuclear feels like this amazing hack but it’s expensive, and the storage problem, while sometimes overstated, is also often understated or falsely misrepresented as solved.
Enrolled in an energy/“climate-focused” masters degree funded by British Petrol. The only downside in nuclear is plants being a sensitive target in warfare.
And earthquakes, and tsunamis, and hurricanes, and floods, and any other unforeseen circumstance which will result in rising level of cancer and lowering life expectancy for generations in the centuries to come. But yes who cares?! Glowy thing go brrrrrrr!
It’s talking about ignorance honestly, hidro has killed way more people.
You realise that death isn’t the only bad thing that can happen to you? I’d say crippling you and future generations for life is worse than death.
And that’s why replacing coal with fission is a massive step forwards!
Nuclear fuel is a kind of fossil fuel
it literally isn’t, why people are saying this? the fossil part comes from being, well fossilized organic material, hence hidrocarbon rich, nuclear isn’t tthat, it’s not renewable but is clean energy.
but is clean energy
Look at all this cleanliness:
Its not matter that people die, because they do and will from anything, it is how many
I could look up photos of people hurt at a wind farm or something, but we would both agree of the utter ridiculousness of it, of it being a rare and freak ocurrance, numbers don’t lie as nuclear having a low death per kW ratio.
deleted by creator
Lmfaoooo quality meme
Wow, I am truly surprised by the amount of angry comments this meme generated lol
Am I the only one that read this in the tongue-in-cheek “checkmate, atheists” tone because it looked like an intentional strawman argument?
honestly, IDK how much of a strawman it is, Germany literally replaced nuclear with coal.
People are actually using this argument to keep using fossil fuels? That’s crazy.
Forcing nuclear down our throats while renewables are a thing is so wild. And people actually defend nuclear.
You want mining of sparse minerals by workers in inhuman conditions? Check
You want a contamination which will exist for longer than the oldest human build structure? Check (because the barrels you made made indestructible, just dont test this pls)
You want centralized energy way more expansive than solar or wind? Check
There are literally no upsides of nuclear against renewables and a battery.
Bruh.
Nuclear is capable of generating a ton of energy right besides where is used, renewables have to be transmitted absurdly long distances in most cases.
And mining is every day more automated, sending robots to dig down the materials, and even then, is not like renewables don’t need mining also lol.
And yes, they test it, here they’re smashing a train full speed to one of the canisters to test it’s safety
Bruh
-
Renawbles are capable of generating a ton of energy manageable distances from where they are used in most cases, even for the cases which they are not it is orders of magnitudes cheaper and better for environment if you make green hydrogen, ship it to where its needed and convert it back into current where you need it considered the absurd amounts of time and cost it takes to manage nuclear waste. Not even considering the cost to mine and ship nuclear fuel, build the reactor and safely dispose of it at the end of its lifespan as its miniscule compared to maintain any sort of storage building for a time longer than the time between humanitys first building and now.
-
Mining is mostly done by people living under slave like conditions in poor countries. Even thinking having a energy source which needs to CONTINUOUSLY BURN MINED RECOURCES to keep outputting any energy at all is superior to a energy source which NEEDS MINED RESOURCES ONCE TO CONTINUOUSLY output energy until broken by external forces shows the absurdity of your argument
Solar panels need silicium (literally sand) and bor, apart from some plastics and structural metal and glass. Those are way easier and cleaner to mine then radioactive materials, and bor is needed in really small amounts, AND IT DOESNT GET BURNED, YOU CAN REUSE IT.
3.Thinking that smashing a train against something tells you anything about the properties of a material when exposed to time spans of degradation many orders of magnitude bigger than the time humans even started researching material properties…I dont even know where to start with this “argument” its bs on so many levels
Im not a nuclear bro, but a vast majority of the planet’s Uranium is mined in Australia and Canada and both countries have pretty massive reserves. They have strict regulations and safety surrounding uranium operations. Naturally occurring uranium doesnt even pose much safety risk on its own, its the Radon that is generated by decay that causes problems for humans. Im not too familiar with how uranium mining is done but I imagine Radon risks can be mitigated pretty effectively with ventilation.
About the point 2.
I live in a thinrd world country, and it angers me to no end when they try to take this moral stand when a lot of times they’re the ones who didn’t let us all develop in the first place lol.
My country depends on it’s mining industry, the biggest copper mining country in the world and i think the 2nd on lithium, they say it’s the wage of chile, most of the copper is extracted by the State owned CODELCO, wich money goes to schools and hospitals, and even the one who is mined privately is taxed and has to pay royalties that go to help the people.
Miners aren’t even poorly paid for Chilean standards, and they have benefits, they’re strongly unionized lol, and mines here have an extremely high tech level, making people don’t have to go to risky places, a lot of mines are totally automated, where robots extract the material and take it out, while their operators sit comfortably in a control room in the city.
So don’t come to lecture me on these “poor people in third world countries” because you know nothing, you are a firstworlder who had benefited from colonization and political meddling in our affairs, now that we’re finally advancing, and making a better country for ourselves, you come to say this thing? Bruh.
I fully agree with you that my ancestors have chosen the path of violence and colonization, which I absolutely condemn and try to make up for in my every day live.
And you are right, I dont know about uranian mines in Chile, nice that its state owned and actually beneficial for the area.
I understand if you argue for nuclear if the mines have developed your region and is actually beneficial to the people from an emotional point of view.
You hit me with an argumentum ad hominem, which is kind of deserved by what the society I live in did to a lot of the world (even if I myself try to fight that, lots of the privileges I have stem from exactly those past oppressions, can’t change that) but its still an argumentum ad hominem, and therefore not really contributing to the matter at hand
Nuclear is bad for humanity, even if I live in Europe.
my country extracts copper nor uranium, I just used it as an example.
-
That’s beside the point. Nuclear isn’t sustainable on the long run, period.And solar can potentially generate all the electricity needed and more by itself.
it isn’t, transmission is a complex thing to do lol, my country had a full blackout last year because a cascading failure caused by a transmission line.
Nuclear fuel will last long enough for us to both have nuclear fission and the capacity to space mine materials.
solar doesn’t work in places that don’t have land available to be turned into solar farms, here in chile they do a lot of solar, and cool melted salt solar too, but is far north in the Atacama and they have to bring it in, wich is a huge bottle neck, A nuclear power plant in Santiago would relieve a lot the strain in the grid.
Yes, transmission is a complex thing to do, and that’s why more funds should used to improve research in that direction, rather than wasting hundreds of billions on ticking time bombs, so that mining company owners can get richer while making us sicker.
1 hour of sunlight that hits the sunlit hemisphere, contains enough energy to satisfy the needs of the whole planet for 1 year. That’s how much solar is better than nuclear.
I really can’t believe that in 2026, the idea of generating energy by boiling water, is still considered “advanced tech” just because they wanna use a different fuel. Lol
And no, solar doesn’t need land.
Solar still uses boiling water, thermosolar at least, that has a lot of benefits over the photovoltaic cell, as it can generate energy steadily and even trough the night, here in chile they built cerro dominador, quite impressive thing.
it depends on the geography of the place, in my country it would be reasonably a huge challenge to build farms over the sea because of the geography of here (it’s like a underwater cliff)
and still, I’m heavily pro renewables, but that doesn’t I won’t be pro nuclear also, both are crucial tech to de-carbonize the world.
Photovoltaic is the future, it’sprettyy much unarguably the only technology that can create energy without moving parts or without any sort of burning.
You don’t get any more futuristic than this. The only problem with photovoltaic and wind is that they’ve been actively boycotted.
Here in the UK energy providers habitually stop their own wind turbines just because otherwise the price of energy will get too low. That’s how fucked up the system is. And nuclear is nothing more than an astute way for these capitalist pigs in control of the energy sector to keep making money from something that should be free already.
I fully agree that solar will be the majority of electricity produced in the near future, but photovoltaic has the disadvantage of following the sun, and honestly, chermical batteries aren’t really the solution (and I’m saying this when my country is one of the biggest lithium producers in the world) Gravity batteries are, but surprise surprise, they are water turbines and water pumps lol, they will last way longer than a chermical battery anyways.
Thermosolar has the molten salt as a buffer between the sun and the electricity, you can use it to produce energy steadily, even in the night, wich solves the problem of having to build gravity damns and the associated risk of them.
I’m confident studying mech, because it isn’t going away anytime soon.
and yeah, I full agree that we need to reform the power grid and enact at least partial statization.
but still, nuclear is a good tech that can produce clean energy right where is needed, we shouldn’t discard it just because renewables are quite O.P.
It’s a ploy to keep power in the hands of corporations and the bourgeois state. And in some cases the vision is to give the ultra rich nuclear (weapons) capabilities.
Get lost with your expensive nuclear energy. Renewables produce MUCH cheaper energy.
If we didn’t fight Nuclear energy for decades we wouldn’t have been in half as much trouble as we are in now. But the oil companies won with their smear campaigns.
Renewable energy is cheaper now, but that wasn’t always the case. Also nuclear can be part of solving some of the issues with renewable energy. We can build massive battery banks and double our number of solar farms so that we have power when the sun goes down or we can reduce the need and incorporate nuclear
Nuclear is an either or situation. Either nuclear or renewables. It makes no sense to build a nuclear plant and not run it at 100%. They are way too expensive for that. That means your energy prices will not go down even though we have incredibly cheap energy available. Nuclear is not cheap, not renewable and obtaining the nuclear material another problem on it’s own.
Nuclear is an either or situation.
No its not, how did you make up that conclusion? You can absolutely have both and you should.
Nuclear can be used to reduce the need for rather expensive storage for solar/wind energy.
You know what many places do now when solar falls short or at nighttime when the sun does not shine? They burn gas, oil, or coal.
Yes and that nuclear power plant is not shut down at day time. Instead renewables will be throttled if there is an overproduction. That is the either/or scenario that I mean. Every watt that is produced by a nuclear power plant is pretty much a constant and displaces renewables. It also keeps the base energy costs high because they are constantly running.
By putting a higher percentage on nuclear you reduce the need to create storage capabilities. Nuclear should ideally cover a majority of nighttime hours with the rest being handled through solar storage and wind.
Yes this will be more expensive than the current solution which is to fire up the coal plants at night, but some costs are worth it. Maybe this can be handled by battery storage, but no one has done that yet so it is hard to gage the final cost.
I care just a little more about not burning fossil fuels than the cost
Nonsense, fision energy is expensive and dangerous.
Only in Germany there are over 12.000 tons of radioactive waste and nobody knows where to stored it secure for the next 100.000 years. It’s depending on third countries to import the needed Uranium Indestructibles containers in a geological stable vault is a bad joke, it don’t exist, at least not enough for all the waste, not even for the already existing. A nuclear reactor has a life span of ~50 years max, after this it need to be eliminated, a process of over 10 years for descontamination and elimination of more radioactive waste with a cost of billions of $, paid by the country, as said, by you, not by the company. Means 50 years energy and >50.000 years problems. Nuclear is the best, but only if we have an working fusion reactor, means, maybe in 10-20 years. Meanwhile the fision energy is sponsored by certain lobbies and the weapon industry, they are the real reason.
In Spain the energy costs for the user are ~14 cts/kWh at some hours even free (the lowest costs in the EU), thanks to the intensive use of renevable energy, blocked often by fossil and nuclear lobbies in other countries.
Two things can be true.
Nuclear energy can be prohibitively expensive and impractical and have a massive storage problem. And fossil energy can still be even worse with externalities.
My 2 cents:
For the case of Germany, yeah it would be batshit crazy to build new nuclear reactors right now. Completely irrational. But turning off the existing ones prematurely was a grandiose idiot move and here we are still mining brown coal. People hold up the “but the nuclear plants that got shut down were replaced with renewables, not coal”. Yeah, well those renewables were supposed to replace the coal.
The German situation is (as usually) especially frustrating since it comes down to the right-wingers cashing on a moment of high uncertainty for a bit of popular support and they have since then both sabotaged renewable energy and blamed the nuclear exit on other parties.
FFS, no one ever argues that we should replace nuclear energy with fossils, even the genuine fossil fuel lobbyist politicians don’t argue it like that. Why even bring it up?
It’s undestandable to use existing Reaktors some years more, because closing them, as explained, is an even bigger mess with inacceptable costs. The consquences of an Hype promoted by Lobbies, without any thoughts and planning about, like selling expensive cars without brakes.
“Indestructible”?
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Thanks for the laugh, pal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY446h4pZdc
Pretty much, yeah
In the 1990s, the NRC had to “take repeated actions to address defective welds on dry casks that led to cracks and quality assurance problems; helium had leaked into some casks, increasing temperatures and causing accelerated fuel corrosion”.[11]
With the zeroing of the federal budget for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada in 2011, more nuclear waste began being stored in dry casks. Many of these casks are stored in coastal or lakeside regions where a salt air environment exists, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology posited that corrosion in these environments could occur in 30 years or less, while the NRC was studying whether the casks could be used for 100 years as some hoped.[12]
Impervious to absolutely anything, except a little helium, or slightly salty air.
Or budget cuts, corrupt management, lazy employees, bad training etc…
And the “seismically inactive geology” that somehow always funnels into a local aquifer.
That video is strange marketing nonsense. Running a train doesn’t apply the same forces and wear-down as nature will, just ask your mother.
My momma doesn’t work in hazardous materials handling, I do. So maybe your mom can ask me?
so a train will be less terrible than to be stored in seismically inactive rock?
This would have been a great meme 50 years ago[1]. We already knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that climate change was caused by human fossil fuel consumption. At the time, a hard pivot to nuclear power would have been a great way to kick the can down the road for a few decades until we figured out a better idea.
Well, it’s a few decades later now. We came up with a lot of better ideas since then. Solar, wind, and geothermal are ascendant. And they don’t have nearly as many downsides as nuclear and hydro.
Side-note: a Spongebob meme would have really fucked people up in 1976. ↩︎
Nuclear is the best btw.
What’s the LCoE of new nuclear? What’s the LCoE when you add the cost of the storage mentioned in your meme?
Nuclear has been artificially made way more expensive than it should be.
For one part, why is it the only energy source that has to take care of its waste? (LCOE includes this cost, and I’m not saying they shouldn’t, I’m saying other sources should too.) Coal can spew waste out (including radioactive waste) and they don’t have to handle it. Wind just throws out blades and doesn’t have to deal with them. Etc.
The insane strictness on designs and safety are also far higher than they should be. A lot of its based on a linear no threshold model of radiation safety, which has been disproven., which dramatically increases costs.
Even still, LCOE for nuclear is pretty competitive in the US, and the US is one of the worst places for nuclear, as our dirty energy companies have easily been able to purchase laws to increase the cost of nuclear, so they can’t compete as much. Sort this by LCOE and see how many cheap nuclear is for most nations.
Indestructible like the Runit dome?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-15/cracks-appear-in-runit-dome-amid-sea-level-rise/106423684
