374
submitted 9 months ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/funny@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Skedule@lemmy.ml 27 points 9 months ago

All the comments about the nuclear reactor disasters remind me of a Vsauce video called Risk. . Michael talks about a hypothetical world where "one cigarette pack out of every eighteen thousand seven hundred and fifty contains a single cigarette laced with dynamite that, when lit, violently explodes, blowing the user's head off. People would be loudly and messily losing their heads every day all over the world but in that imaginary universe the same number of people would die every day because of smoking that already do". Nuclear disasters are messy, but affect less people than coal plants operating normally.

[-] Bloodh0undJohnson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 9 months ago

Yeah, but the only choice isn't between smoking cigarettes and smoking dynamite sticks. Coal being bad doesn't make nuclear good. Meltdowns aren't the only bad things that nuclear reactors can cause. Where I live, people are losing their heads talking about how we need more nuclear power so we can get bigger electric cars to replace bicycles and public transport (not to replace cars with internal combustion engines, of course, because how else would people get on board with building infrastructure for giant electric sports cars than to let pre-existing rustbuckets roam free and keep gas stations in operation).

[-] Gabu@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Coal being bad doesn’t make nuclear good

Except it does, because every single second that you're running fossil fuels is causing more irreversible damage to our biosphere at a scale we can't possibly contain, and you must produce electricity somehow. When demand is completely inelastic, a bad option can become a good option as long as there are worse alternatives.

[-] joe_cool@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

Also burning coal, especially Lignite which is what Germany is burning, has very bad heating value and ironically contains lots of heavy metals and naturally occurring radioactive materials (radon, thorium, uranium, potassium).

All of that goes out the smoke stack into the environment. Radiation levels and cancer rates around coal power plants are significantly increased. But that seems to be no big deal for some ideologues.

[-] imgcat@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

Don't spoil the fun, people want to feel smart with no effort.

[-] smegforbrains@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It's not a question of either using coal or nuclear power in Germany. The idea is to phase out coal power production by 2038 and replaced them by building 40 green hydrogen plants in order to be climate neutral by 2045 with renewables, which already are 52% of the German mix and the before mentioned green hydrogen plants.

Here's a Google translation of a source about the energy transition in Germany:

https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Energiewende?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp

[-] uis@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

by building 40 green hydrogen plants

Where would they get hydrogen?

[-] smegforbrains@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago

The hydrogen is produced by employing renewables during times of overproduction.

[-] pingveno@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Nuclear disasters are messy, but affect less people than coal plants operating normally.

Not just that, but the disasters we do have with nuclear plants are with old ones. Fukushima was built in 1971, 40 years before the 2011 incident. The meltdown it experienced wouldn't just be more difficult in modern reactors. It would be impossible by design. We should be building new nuclear partially to retire old dangerous plants.

this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
374 points (100.0% liked)

Share Funny Videos, Images, Memes, Quotes and more

2441 readers
57 users here now

#funny

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS