Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Extremely-Bad-Idea t1_iruk4yn wrote

Reply to comment by CannoliIntoPussy in Solar Rollout Rouses Resistance in Europe’s Countryside: Regulations meant to protect green space block the installation of solar panels despite soaring energy prices by CannoliIntoPussy

Ever heard of Chernobyl and Fukushima?

−25

smellyseamus t1_irun2v3 wrote

Ever heard of the hundreds of nuclear power plants around the world that have had no issues whatsoever during their operational lifespan?

20

[deleted] t1_irur7fu wrote

[removed]

−8

LarryGumball t1_irusod5 wrote

I see your statement on some news sites, however is there anything with the math/science to back it up as that looks like the numbers during the explosions, and Most of radioactive materials are short-lived ones, which there was indeed a chance of massive danger for Europe, mostly the ones closer to the explosion depending on the winds due to a second explosion, the rest of Europe would've encountered a increase similar to a X-ray/Cat-scan. Overall even including that disaster, Nuclear counts to 1/5 of coal and natural gas for radiation per UNSCEAR .

I would also like to add the pollution generated by coal and factories in china, has been recorded to reach California and is thought to contribute 65% more smog ~35% of it being from coal burning. Which again contains radioactive isotopes. Worldwide I would love to see total radiation increases due to various activity's and naturally.

8

Optix334 t1_irv23il wrote

You won't ever get a source because it's not true. The only place emitting that much radiation was basically in the middle of the reactor where humans would never go anyway.

And on top of it, nothing nuclear even exploded. It was a steam explosion. The explosion caused a meltdown which, as you mentioned, was very radioactive for a very short time. The meltdown caused the reactor to stop reacting, as we would expect.

And the final cherry on top is that less than 100 deaths can be positively linked to this over 4 decades. The rest is bad science, inconclusive data, and fear mongering. Google the solar deaths in the same timeframe.

But we still get the ignorance all over the place, and we'll end up putting it off right until the last moment when renewables can't power industry well enough to keep up with maintenance and replacements, or we run out of neodymium for wind turbines, or we poison the land with cobalt from a solar panel accident of some kind.

3

UncommercializedKat t1_irusidx wrote

The thing that keeps nuclear energy dangerous is fear of nuclear disaster which prevents new safe reactors from being built and instead we have to rely on aging nuclear reactors.

I don't disagree with the facts in your first two paragraphs or that existing nuclear reactors are incredibly dangerous. For those that don't know, much safer reactor technology exists. The nuclear fuel is self-regulating so the chance of meltdown is almost zero.

6

LarryGumball t1_iruoysf wrote

Ah yes, the basically a bathtub with nuclear materials with almost no good design by the same people who gave them detectors that didn't even go to the level of the radiation, and the disaster of a 1960's tech reactor built in 1970's with a 9.0 that happens globally maybe 1-3 times ~ a century. Which was partly caused by generators running out of fuel, due to flooding.

Honestly a massive issue, however just like solar, nuclear has had massive improvements in both design efficiency and safety, which isn't surprising seeing as the designs being from nearly only 15 years from the first use of nuclear in the form of a bomb.. it's negative effects are indeed horrid but have caused less radioactive side effects than coal which contain radioactive isotopes.

People point to these and three mile island yet even so, the amount of death caused by them which again is using rather old designs is lower than that of the coal mining and burning that happens throughout the world.

Let alone the newer designs that are molten salt based and smaller scale, people maybe scared of them from the past, but still drive cars and use pressure cookers, one which is technically using small explosions to propel itself forward and the other a cooking device that if improperly handled/built is basically a bomb. But consistent design lessons have made both safe.

Only issue is you can't redesign a nuclear facility quickly, partly from design, and partly due to people being so against them.

Please have a open mind to technology that is still a great way to augment Solar/Wind/Geo/Dam based energies, since modern reactors can also bring energy generation up and down faster than before. They can be used when the winds not flowing and the suns hiding.

6