Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3vrj4y wrote

Reply to comment by Fabulous_Engineer_79 in Solar and wind is ugly, Nuclear is the only other safe energy. When will it happen here? by drdanagram

Oh yes so many incidents that didn't cause a whole lot of damage.

How about those lithium and cobalt mines for solar panels? Discarded solar panels leeching toxins into the ground? The physical massive amount of space wind and solar waste takes up?

Nothing is perfect. Nuclear has less issues then the other options

2

Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j3ypwif wrote

I’m not surprised that evidence that refutes your claim(nuclear accidents couldn’t happen here) isn’t enough to convince you. You will just keep screaming into the void like a cultist.

0

Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3yuxg6 wrote

These are hardly nuclear accidents. Some of the examples are incidents that can happen anywhere else like the dropping of heavy equipment on someone is listed. Just happened to happen at a plant. I consider a "nuclear" accident to be radiation effecting people or wildlife from the plant

0

Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j40zjh2 wrote

Right because if they were nuclear accidents, that would make you wrong. So forget the fact that they were nuclear accidents. Forget about three mile island. In the interest of you being correct, it’s clear that the facts don’t matter.

0

Super-Lychee8852 t1_j430v0n wrote

There's already a long discussion on 3 mile.

To sum it up, 0 dead, no notable environmental effect.

0

Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j432vv2 wrote

So, supposing that’s true, do you believe that it’s outside the realm of possibility that such an event would cause substantial harm to the environment or people?

1

Super-Lychee8852 t1_j43auc1 wrote

A repeat incident is astronomically low. That plant was built over 50 years ago, technology has advanced

0

Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j43b4tj wrote

That doesn’t answer the question. Are you a statistician and nuclear physicist and engineer? How else could you be so sure about that?

1

Super-Lychee8852 t1_j43dzxg wrote

The hundreds of reactors being used around the world without issue. The rest of the world utilizes them quite a bit

0

Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j43hgoa wrote

I’m not sure why you would argue with people online when you have nothing to back up your claims.

0

Super-Lychee8852 t1_j43p67q wrote

Because you're an adult and I'm giving you the points you can look up if you choose.

France generates 70% of its electricity via nuclear. Nuclear provides 10% of the worlds power. Nuclear is reported the second largest source of low carbon power in the world. There are 440 active reactors in the world. China is pumping them out like crazy, currently have 5 in construction. In the US nuclear is generating almost 20% of our grid as is. Finland is 33% nuclear energy production. Sweden is 30%, people in the US like to compare to nordic countries often.

It's very safe. Very efficient. Very good for the environment

0

Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j4432ew wrote

You’re forgetting how incompetent and corrupt Americans are. You sound like Donald Trump promoting coal. It’s not safe, it requires extremely rare and dangerous materials to produce. If society collapses the plants become an immediate problem. It has been a problem in Ukraine for about a year now. Compare that to wind and solar arrays which pose no risk to humanity and the environment. Good thing you have absolutely no decision making power on this.

0

Super-Lychee8852 t1_j44l32i wrote

Wind and solar have no risk??? Also made with toxic chemicals that leech into the environment. Killing far more wildlife than nuclear and taking up far more landfill space. Doubled demand on lithium alongside EV cars. Ever see what a lithium mine looks like? We're already looking at 720 tons of unrecyclable wind trash, the solar panel craze is looking double maybe even triple electronics trash. That stuff isn't environmentally friendly lol

0

Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45um70 wrote

Find me one instance if people getting killed by a horrific wind and solar accident that made the surrounding area uninhabitable. Rhetorically, since you’re a fucking idiot and that doesn’t exist. Or maybe wind and solar bombs? No referring to comic books though.

0

Super-Lychee8852 t1_j45xdld wrote

  1. You're referring to events that will never happen in the US.

  2. The point of solar and wind is to be good for the environment, which it isn't.

  3. People die in the mines for the materials, wind turbines kill over 500k birds a year, destroys environment by finding space to discard the waste.

  4. Grow up with the name calling kid. Nuclear is the safest energy source we have available

1

Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45xt0e wrote

You are so dense, there’s no point in engaging in civil debate.

0

Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45vzav wrote

A screening program a year later in 2012 found that more than a third (36%) of children in Fukushima Prefecture have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands.[215] As of August 2013, there have been more than 40 children newly diagnosed with thyroid cancer and other cancers in Fukushima prefecture as a whole.

No problem there right? So what if kids get cancer! It’s totally safe! That could never happen here! Certainly not in a country where even the government tried to cover up the polluted water in Flint, Michigan.

0

Super-Lychee8852 t1_j45wt3w wrote

It's almost like Fukushima isn't relevant. How many 9.0 magnitude earthquakes followed by 40m tall waves happen in the US?

1

Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45xxwn wrote

Sure, let’s get a nuclear plant going in Florida. We never have weather events here. You are willfully ignoring so much evidence contrary to your views, it’s kind of sad.

0

Super-Lychee8852 t1_j45y3nm wrote

So we don't put one in southern Florida? It's not a difficult concept. There are plenty of places in the US that are risk free

1

Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45ym3y wrote

“Risk free” Let’s be sure to consult Super-Lychee8852 on the risks to nuclear power generation here. This guys knows what’s up.

1

Super-Lychee8852 t1_j45ytgv wrote

Cope

1

Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j4600w1 wrote

The original argument here was that you try to justify your claim that nuclear generation is ideal by saying that nuclear accidents don’t happen. That’s false. You won’t convince anybody who doesn’t already share your view by making claims that can be so easily verified as false. Then when you’re presented with a fairly long and comprehensive list of accidents, you say they’re not accidents. Well, according to the scientific community they are accidents. I don’t think your determination carries more weight. In short, people don’t want nuclear power because of the risk, however remote the possibility of a serious accident might be. You won’t be convincing anybody otherwise.

0