Compare what you think you know with the reality of how nuclear power is used all over the world and safely.
Even Fukushima wasn’t that bad in terms of human casualties. It was the tsunami that caused all the loss of life and damage.
Not to say that the Fukushima nuclear incident wasn’t a disaster. But there were no direct deaths from it, and as far as anyone knows, no one has died of even indirect causes.
And there are a LOT of operating nuclear plants all over the world.
Edit: nuclear power generation has the 2nd least amount of deaths attributed to it out of all energy sources, beaten only by solar and only by a small margin.
How is it bizarre? Did you ever understand the qualifier? I’m pretty sure you didn’t, so I’ll explain it for you.
It “wasn’t that bad” in regards to human life, because no one died. The implied other side of the quality is that it still was bad because there was a release of radioactive material into the environment.
So you see how it’s bad, unless we’re talking about humans literally dying as a result.
Yay? Am I supposed to give nuclear a point because “only” the environment and animal life was trashed? Okay, sure. “Less Deadly To Humans” than oil. Y’know people still eat Gulf seafood, but if that pipe was spewing radioactive waste for a month, they wouldn’t.
Actually, they probably would. I dunno. Renewables. That’s all.
Yay? Am I supposed to give nuclear a point because “only” the environment and animal life was trashed?
You’re missing the part where Fukushima and Chernobyl were the only major/catastrophic nuclear power accidents in history (edit: aside from a wild one from the 50s before we really understood nuclear energy). And both of them were a result of both bad policy and, more importantly, bad tech/design.
Chernobyl was especially stupid on literally every level possible.
And, like I said earlier but you seem to have “forgotten”, nuclear is safer (has caused less deaths) than ALL other forms of power generation (including renewables) other than solar. And it’s almost on par with solar.
Everything has trade-offs.
Solar needs a LOT of land, works only during the day. Less effective the further north/south you get from the equator.
Wind only works well in certain regions, and requires a significant amount of concrete to build.
Wave power generation only works along coastlines or out at sea. And transmitting that power to where it’s needed isn’t easy and is costly.
Hydro dams are extremely limited to where they can be built, and transitional designs are extremely damaging (although newer types are much better)
Nuclear plants can be built just about anywhere. And newer designs are extremely safe. Canada’s CanDu reactors are practically instructable.
A proper solution is a baseline of nuclear with wind, solar, hydro being built where possible.
Solar needs a LOT of land, works only during the day. Less effective the further north/south you get from the equator.
Guess what - we already take up a lot of land. Put some solar panels up there ffs. And geothermal’s a thing just fyi.
Wave power generation only works along coastlines or out at sea.
Damn you’re full of useful information.
Nuclear plants can be built just about anywhere. And newer designs are extremely safe. Canada’s CanDu reactors are practically instructable.
Instructable? Cool. That’s a thing nuclear designs should be.
A proper solution is a baseline of nuclear with wind, solar, hydro being built where possible.
We actually agree on that but your nuclear blathering takes too long. You got a 10’ x 10’ reactor for Hudson Bay then kudos, NOW can we get renewables set up OH AND a distribution network for our friends too far north or south to benefit from 12 hours of sun a day like in Norway o wait
Guess what - we already take up a lot of land. Put some solar panels up there ffs.
Can I send you the bill?
And geothermal’s a thing just fyi.
Same question.
Damn you’re full of useful information.
Most people think so.
Instructable? Cool.
Autocorrect on mobile is a thing. Nice deflection from the main argument that you can’t refute. I had meant to write “indestructible”, and it’s true. CanDu has several safety features and design features that make a meltdown functionally impossible.
We actually agree on that
I call bull on that, nearly every single comment from you is about how “nuclear isn’t safe”.
No, you really don’t.
Compare what you think you know with the reality of how nuclear power is used all over the world and safely.
Even Fukushima wasn’t that bad in terms of human casualties. It was the tsunami that caused all the loss of life and damage.
Not to say that the Fukushima nuclear incident wasn’t a disaster. But there were no direct deaths from it, and as far as anyone knows, no one has died of even indirect causes.
And there are a LOT of operating nuclear plants all over the world.
Edit: nuclear power generation has the 2nd least amount of deaths attributed to it out of all energy sources, beaten only by solar and only by a small margin.
This is such a bizarre qualifier. Like when people handwave climate change because the rocks will still be here.
How is it bizarre? Did you ever understand the qualifier? I’m pretty sure you didn’t, so I’ll explain it for you.
It “wasn’t that bad” in regards to human life, because no one died. The implied other side of the quality is that it still was bad because there was a release of radioactive material into the environment.
So you see how it’s bad, unless we’re talking about humans literally dying as a result.
Yay? Am I supposed to give nuclear a point because “only” the environment and animal life was trashed? Okay, sure. “Less Deadly To Humans” than oil. Y’know people still eat Gulf seafood, but if that pipe was spewing radioactive waste for a month, they wouldn’t.
Actually, they probably would. I dunno. Renewables. That’s all.
You’re missing the part where Fukushima and Chernobyl were the only major/catastrophic nuclear power accidents in history (edit: aside from a wild one from the 50s before we really understood nuclear energy). And both of them were a result of both bad policy and, more importantly, bad tech/design.
Chernobyl was especially stupid on literally every level possible.
And, like I said earlier but you seem to have “forgotten”, nuclear is safer (has caused less deaths) than ALL other forms of power generation (including renewables) other than solar. And it’s almost on par with solar.
Everything has trade-offs.
Solar needs a LOT of land, works only during the day. Less effective the further north/south you get from the equator.
Wind only works well in certain regions, and requires a significant amount of concrete to build.
Wave power generation only works along coastlines or out at sea. And transmitting that power to where it’s needed isn’t easy and is costly.
Hydro dams are extremely limited to where they can be built, and transitional designs are extremely damaging (although newer types are much better)
Nuclear plants can be built just about anywhere. And newer designs are extremely safe. Canada’s CanDu reactors are practically instructable.
A proper solution is a baseline of nuclear with wind, solar, hydro being built where possible.
No shit?
Guess what - we already take up a lot of land. Put some solar panels up there ffs. And geothermal’s a thing just fyi.
Damn you’re full of useful information.
Instructable? Cool. That’s a thing nuclear designs should be.
We actually agree on that but your nuclear blathering takes too long. You got a 10’ x 10’ reactor for Hudson Bay then kudos, NOW can we get renewables set up OH AND a distribution network for our friends too far north or south to benefit from 12 hours of sun a day like in Norway o wait
None.
Can I send you the bill?
Same question.
Most people think so.
Autocorrect on mobile is a thing. Nice deflection from the main argument that you can’t refute. I had meant to write “indestructible”, and it’s true. CanDu has several safety features and design features that make a meltdown functionally impossible.
I call bull on that, nearly every single comment from you is about how “nuclear isn’t safe”.
Words are hard, huh?