why do you hate nuclear energy so much

😎 SIGN UP TO CANVASS! www.vaush.gg/map
🔴 Website - www.vaush.gg/
💵 Patreon - / vaush
🌟 Other Socials 🌟
⭐️ Main Channel - / vaush
👀 3rd Channel? - / @vaushvidya
🐦 Twitter - / vaushv
👾 Twitch - / vaushvidya
📸 Instagram - / vaushv
🔵 Facebook - / vaushvidya
🎵 TikTok - / vaushvidya
🎙Podcast - anchor.fm/vaush
#vaush #vaushpit

[@guyinreallife6035]

its VERY simple: its because people perceive large events instead of large numbers of small events as the problem. we should know this from 1 Million covid deaths being glossed over so much and a big car wreck that might kill 3 people gets the nightly news spot. BEST example is Hiroshima, 1st off most people forget Nagasaki altogether, but remember we were already fire bombing them, a single flight would drop over 1500 tons of bombs per night; where as little boy was 15,000 tons worth of explosives all at once, which one do we talk about? no one visualizes the deaths at the hands of oil because they go unnamed and unnoticed and fade into the deaths of the year, Chernobyl will never ever be forgotten. humans are just simple like that

[@m.f.3347]

Vsauce has an excellent video called "Risk" that goes into this indepth. One of his examples was to imagine if 1 out of every 100,000 boxes of cigarettes had a bomb in it that instantly killed the smoker - statistically, actual deaths from smoking wouldn't change, but people would be far more averse (I don't remember the exact number but that's the gist of it)

[@scholaepalatinae4988]

Oh yeah, I totally forgot that Tokyo was literally grounded by strategic bombing as well.

[@m33LLS]

Possibly lead poisoning went over our heads as well of how many hundreds of millions of people got brain damage due to leaded gasoline some say the crime increase in the 80s was caused by this.

[@firefly9838]

True plenty die in the oilfield

[@DnD_guydude]

Not to mention most anti-nuclear propaganda has been heavily fueled (no pun intended) by fossil fuel lobbies.

[@trashrabbit69]

My biggest problem with nuclear energy is that I can never understand what's going on. It all just goes right through me.

[@Hiiyapow]

If it helps, and I don't mean this as an insult, you likely don't know what's going on with other power sources either

[@parrot998]

@@Hiiyapow Pretty sure it was a pun on how depending on the frequency of electromagnetic radiation, particles can just pass through matter undeterred. Could be wrong though.

[@aegonthedragon7303]

Atoms go boom, which makes heat, said heat turns to steam which turns a turbine that generates electricity.

[@PhilfreezeCH]

You got a spicy rock, the spicy rock gets hot when it can see other spicy rock. You put the spicy rocks in water, it boils the water. You use the steam to drive a turbine, the turbine drives a generator (which is just a complicated magnet, which in turn induces a current cause induction) and you are done. Obviously real nuclear power plants are more complicated but the basics remain the same. For example you actually use the spicy water to heat another loop of water so you don‘t contaminate everything with spicyness. Or you need some regulator material to keep the spice levels in check, so you basically habe bread sticks between your spicy rocks to absorb some of that spicyness.

[@DeciNate_]

@@PhilfreezeCH OP was clearly making a pun but this is the best explain like I'm five I've ever seen regarding nuclear energy. Beautifully done.

[@VerrouSuo]

during my freshman year of college i took a history course on nuclear power. the prof was extremely anti-nuclear, but he was also a proper die-hard communist. that was an… interesting experience, to say the least.

[@goodpol5022]

This is truly a certified college professor moment

[@VerrouSuo]

@@goodpol5022 mans was the most professor-y professor i’ve ever had. neck-length, straight grey hair; glasses; came to class every day in a sweater and khakis; etc.

[@goodpol5022]

@@VerrouSuo Plus the contradictory communist

[@lx4079]

Was he German? The German greens love doing this shit lol

[@VerrouSuo]

@@lx4079 come to think of it, he _did_ have a German last name… but he was definitely from the States

[@DisasterBreakdown]

Vaush can ask me anytime about Plane and Train crashes.

[@snow6094]

Fancy seeing you here

[@blue5had0w]

Email him

[@TAP7a]

The Simpsons watching generation are the ones most against nuclear. Not even kidding, the representation of nuclear in the show is genuinely a massive PR disaster that is genuinely at the root of quite a lot of nuclear power plant anxiety

[@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770]

Aren’t the Simpsons generation millennials?

[@DataLal]

@@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 Gen X and Millennials.

[@danielshepard2315]

Nuclear doesn't work because it's too expensive, slow, and uses too much water as water is becoming more scarce. Not because of plant anxiety.

[@TheSlayeroftruth]

Or maybe millennialials could just not get our idea of nuclear energy from an animated sitcom where the premise is everything that can go wrong will go wrong.

[@Azaghal1988]

I think it has more to do with being alive during Tchernobyl, Here in europe there are still vast patches of land where foraged mushrooms shouldn't be eaten because of radiation even nearly 40 years after it blew up.

[@irshkashirkle]

There is in fact a code of ethics for engineers, similar to the hippocratic oath for doctors, it just isn't widely known or respected

[@RockyPondProductions]

The oath of the the engineer? That thing means absolutely nothing and is completely fake. In fact you have to pay to get your ring, which most people loose in two days. If you don't pay or forget to sign up during graduation you just graduate anyway. Also you can be an engineer without going to engineering school if you are skilled enough, though this is not as popular any more.

[@irshkashirkle]

@@RockyPondProductions right, that's what I mean by not "widely known or respected". Ideally, ethical engineering should be a thing, but its more of an after thought unless you you yourself decide you want to be ethical.

[@RockyPondProductions]

@@irshkashirkle Generally I think engineering and engineers are mostly ethical, to the best of their ability. In the west at least we have a strong requirement for ISO audits and quality systems. The thing you have to look out for more is the companies. But with pretty heavy competition in the tech industries there is a decent degree of transparency. It is hard to put out a truly malicious product in the long run. Other places around the world place much less emphasis on quality and transparency.

[@irshkashirkle]

@@RockyPondProductions this is generally true, but I've worked in enough food and drug industries to see the corners that get cut in order to get units out the door. Im not saying that it's BAD, but it can feel a little underhanded some times

[@irshkashirkle]

@Christopher Grant lol, nor did I ever say I was proud of it, just pointing out the state of things. The fact that I know about it at all should show that I am more inclined than most engineers to act ethically.

[@nesslig2025]

*@**3:58** "A nuclear disaster makes a place unlivable for a thousand years, an oil or gas disaster is fixable in a few years."* Wrong. SOOOO wrong. Even the worst nuclear disaster (Chernobyl of course) has left an exclusion zone that includes a thriving ecosystem supporting large population of rare and even endangered species. The zone practically functions as a nature reserve. And there are people still living there (not only those who keep an eye on the plant). One might ask "but isn't the radiation still bad?". "Bad" is relative, so we need to put that in the right context. Sure, the elevated levels of radiation within the zone could (in theory) affect the average life expectancy, but there are lot's of other things that are waaay worse. Even as mundane sounding as the poor air quality typical of concrete and iron jungles. One would be better of living in the chernobyl exclusion zone than living in a city like detroit. Although a more relevant example would be the FOSSIL FUEL AIR POLLUTION that kills more 10.000 people every day!! Which is greater than the total death toll of nuclear power throughout history. And that's not even mentioning the climate change which definitely won't be fixable in a few years. If we apply the same standard of "disaster" as with nuclear power, fossil fuels experiences a disaster every single second. This view that a nuclear disaster is worse than an oil or gas disaster is completely asinine beyond belief. Other points someone asked: *1. Cost and time of construction* I agree that this is the biggest hurdle for nuclear. We need to get that cost down, and streamline construction which would be extremely helpful to phase out on fossil fuels. High costs and long construction overtimes of plants are not inevitable to nuclear. The U.S. used to build new nuclear at lower costs than today's natural gas. These were build in the 60s and they remain among the cheapest and safest energy sources, many of which are still with us today. And unlike the U.S., the costs remained stable in places like France, Canada, Japan and South Korea, when they were building a fleet of reactors on time and on budget. France especially since achieved low-carbon electricity, going from 10% to 80% nuclear within 15 years from 1970s to 1980s during which they spend about the eq. of 100 Billion USD (adj. for inflation), compared to the anti-nuclear Germany which has already spend over 500 Billion and yet it continues to emit more CO2 per MWh than nuclear rich countries like France, Sweden and Switzerland. South Korea is a peculiar case, since they succeeded in pushing DOWN the cost at a similar rate as solar energy. This tells us that high cost are NOT intrinsic to nuclear, which means we can make it cheaper. The big lessons learned from this is consistency in regulatory policies, design standardization, and gain experience in building reactors via 'learning-by-doing'. Basically the same reason why renewables became cheap, or a better example would be the Apollo program. NASA spend >10 years and >200 Billion USD (adj. for inflation) before the first successful moon landing with Apollo 11 in 1969. Apollo 12 happened in the same year and with a cost of 3 Billion USD. Apollo 13 of 1970 was a successful failure, and Apollo 14 in 1971 costed also about 3 Billion USD. *2. Water usage* Because nuclear power has an extreme high energy density (a lot of power from few resources and a tiny volume), this means nuclear power is very low entropy. With the production of electricity, the energy is converted into a high entropy form called ‘waste heat’ that needs to be dumped to keep the turbines spinning. This is mostly done with the help of cooling water. On average, nuclear power dissipates more water than almost any technology, with perhaps coal being the only exception. Although coal plants cheat by dumping waste heat DIRECTLY into the atmosphere right along with CO2 and other pollutants, instead of using water to remove heat. Coal with carbon capture and storage will likely use more water for this reason. However, this is only the AVERAGE. How much water a nuclear plant consumes (i.e. takes from the environment and isn’t returned) depends heavily on the cooling system. Open-cycle (or once-through cooling) plant build next to a sea or a large lake simply returns nearly all of the cooling water back into the environment. The slightly warmer water that is returned has minimal impact on the environment, especially in the ocean and large lakes since it’s practically an infinite heat sink. In some cases, the warm water has a positive impact, e.g. conservation of the American crocodile and manatee population, which overwinter near thermal plants that discharge warm water. But you also have power plants that use artificial sources of cooling water, like Palo Verde (US’s largest nuclear power plant) which is placed in the middle of the desert and uses treated sewage water as the coolant. In these cases, virtually no amount of water is consumed from the environment. Relative to such nuclear power plants, even silicon based PV panels manufacturing consume more water, between 0.4 to 2.4 m^3 per MWh. On the other hand closed-cycle cooling with the help of cooling towers will evaporate about 2.4 m^3 per MWh on average. These are among the thermal plants with the largest water consumption levels. Yet, even in those instances, the environmental impact is relatively minor. We need to look at this in a larger context. Life cycle ecological impact from power production is mostly due to climate change, land use (urban/agricultural land occupation and natural land transformation), marine and fresh water toxicity. On all these counts, nuclear power is among the best, even more environmentally benign than most renewables. Water usage is a rather minor concern within the large ecological picture. Not only that, the waste heat that nuclear power plants produce can potentially be used for something instead of being dumped. For example, a nuclear power plant provides district heating to the city of Haiyang, which eliminated 60.000 tonnes of GHG emissions per year and saves ~600 lives annually via the reduction in air pollution. We could also potentially use the waste heat to desalinate seawater, thereby reducing our overall fresh water consumption. In Japan, the first nuclear sea water desalination plant using the multi-stage flash (MSF) distillation process started to operate in 1974 at the Ohi nuclear power station, producing 1300 m^3 potable water per day. In summary: Water consumption varies drastically from plant to plant, depending on the cooling system used. Even those that consume a lot of water, the environmental impact is minor compared to the larger ecological picture. This minor impact can be mitigated by using the waste heat for other purposes instead. Source: See the recent UNECE report on “Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options” *3. Uranium Mining* This is easy. Since uranium is extremely energy dense, you need less resources to produce the same amount of energy. If you fill a coke can with uranium, the energy inside it could provide all your energy needs for your entire life. This energy density and low entropy also affects the required amounts of all other resources. You don’t need as much raw materials per MWh for nuclear power. This is actually one aspect where renewables have the disadvantage, even compared to fossil fuels. Renewables, especially solar and wind, generate electricity from energy with a very high entropy (or “diluted”). This means you need a lot of solar panels and wind turbines spread across a large area to capture the same amount of energy that a nuclear power plant can produce. This also affects the amount of resources required. Solar and wind require more concrete, steel, copper, and other mined materials for every MWh than nuclear power. Thus the overall mining requirements for nuclear is very low. The only energy source with consistent lower material requirements is natural gas, though that is a fossil fuel that causes much greater environmental impact than both nuclear and renewables via climate change. In short: We will always need natural resources, which is why there is no way we can eliminate mining all together. We can only mitigate mining, but for that we have to move towards a low entropy energy sources with high energy densities, such as nuclear power. Source: See the recent UNECE report on “Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options”

[@FelisImpurrator]

As someone who developed a severe cough due to air pollution... Fucking this. People somehow think everyone in developed cities basically having mild to moderate black lung is less bad than the risk of, what, one big accident a decade or so?

[@danielshepard2315]

None of this really matters though because the biggest issues with nuclear are cost, slow startup, water usage, and constant mining of uranium. Not radiation.

[@Luke-pp2lw]

@@danielshepard2315 but there needs to be a base load, until energy storage options are good enough, nuclear is the best bet

[@danielshepard2315]

@@Luke-pp2lw Nuclear requires energy storage options and alternative sources just like renewables do. Nuclear reactors are way too slow to react to peak demand, so most nuclear grids are backed up with batteries and other sources. The problem is it takes at minimum 10-20 years to plan and build a nuclear plant, and it's not cost effective.

[@LowStuff]

@@danielshepard2315 We're also most likely past peak uranium. Coal and gas will last far longer than nuclear with the current nuclear reactors. Without massive changes, nuclear can only be a bridge technology.

[@hugobacklund2909]

Nuclear is perfect as a substitute for fossils. But it should only be seen as a transitional source. The point with wind water and solar power is that they are essentially infinite while nuclear is not infinite and should therefore not be seen as a permanent solution

[@MalachioftheForest]

Wind and solar are only infinite as long as you have the materials to capture the energy. We need a mix of energy production. Putting all of our electrical needs into one source could result in massive blackouts and potentially exponential maintenance costs (the larger the number of solar arrays and wind farms the more rare metals are needed for construction and replacement). Not to mention the danger of fire with wind turbines in areas like California which already have major concerns with wild fire.

[@lil_weasel219]

@@MalachioftheForest there is one potential issue and that is that nuclear and renewables don't mix well unfortunately. One requires a centralised grid, while the other decentralised. Mixing them creates certain issues. I remember reading a study on this. I forgot the details tho. In addition, there isnt much nuclear fuel left in the world.

[@chiangkaishrek5123]

renewables are not the end goal, fusion reactors will be much more efficient for humanity

[@XMysticHerox]

@@chiangkaishrek5123 Then in the meantime you want to build the more efficient solar and wind yes?

[@samwhite4961]

There is effectively enough nuclear fuel in the earth’s soil to last 4 billion years if public support allowed to expand current breeder reactor technology which means it would outlast the destruction of our solar system… but I guess some of you read a study so that’s not renewable enough

[@Tezlaah]

People complaining about the lack of knowledge on trains be like: "I've trained all my life for this moment."

[@RunD.Ones1s]

You can’t be for decarbonization if you’re anti nuclear energy

[@Karak971]

You can, especially since nuclear energy isn't renewable, but you make it harder for people to accept your position as nuclear energy is an amazing alternative to gas or coal power.

[@amerashi1111]

@@Karak971 looser

[@kiwi_2_official]

@@Karak971 you're just anti nuclear

[@RunD.Ones1s]

@@Karak971 fixed it, that’s what I meant Nuclear is carbon free but with current technology is not renewable, at least until we learn how to use more common elements to produce it

[@lilithva9111]

@@Karak971 Nuclear energy would be used for a long term transition period where we put our research and development into nuclear fusion and increasing efficiency on other green energies.

[@Arkham225]

This the first step of “Punished” Vaush - a man denied his nuggies

[@lj2265]

What I learned is if Texas ever tried to secede they would have to be invaded for their oil resources lmao

[@moss3779]

This clump of moss hopes everyone is having a nice day 🥺

[@Swolidarity]

Thanks moss

[@sgtkasi]

Thanks, pleasant clump of moss. Have a moist and semi-sunny day, moss friend.

[@sunspear4858]

I hope you have a BAD DAY!!! (I am just having some Wednesday afternoon fun, no hard feelings!)

[@rosenrot6871]

It's been a rough 24 hours, but things should *hopefully* get better soon. I hope you're having a nice day as well clump of moss.

[@greenberry6019]

Avocadocrunch 2.0 over here

[@cameronnouwens]

The nuclear conversation in Australia is almost exclusively the coal lobby using it to delay renewables. We have the potential to be the largest producer of renewables in the world and our nuclear industry is not even in the beginning stages of being established, making the push for nuclear power here a giant waste of time for the foreseeable future.

[@parrot998]

Well everything depends on context. If you lack the infrastructure for nuclear, go for something else. But nuclear is still very much vital to removing fossil fuels entirely on the global scale.

[@nesslig2025]

What?! The coal lobby is the only one promoting nuclear power in Australia? Eh... no. That's obviously not true since coal and nuclear are direct competitors. That's why the Australian coal lobby has been explicitly anti-nuclear, and they haven't even been subtle about it. They put out an ad showing a picture of sad coal miners which included a banner that says "Protecting mining jobs and communities" and that "nuclear power will kill the coal industry". The following in an excerpt from an article of 'The Australian' from 2007, back when Australians were called to direct their attention to nuclear power as a means to address climate change by Prime Minister John Howard: _Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union mining division boss Tony Maher warned yesterday that nuclear power would jeopardise job security for coal miners and power workers. As his union launched an advertising campaign attacking the Howard Government’s greenhouse policy, Mr Maher said: _*_“The real threat to coal miners’ job security and power workers’ job security is 25 nuclear reactors in Australia. “That’s the harsh reality. A solar farm down the road is not going to close down a coal-fired power station. But 25 nuclear reactors will,”_*_ he told the Ten Network’s Meet The Press program."_ The fact that Australia doesn't have a nuclear industry isn't surprising since Australia put a prohibition on nuclear power in 1998/1999 due to the actions of the anti-nuclear movement. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. The anti-nuclear movement succeeded in prohibiting nuclear power in Australia, and now you act all surprised when there isn't a nuclear industry in Australia.

[@x999uuu1]

Don't underbelly nuclear across the world because it won't be suitable in your situation right now.

[@freddesroches9416]

Renewables is the future but still need a predictable base load electricity...

[@estebandelasexface8193]

@@x999uuu1 I think the point is pro-nuclear people are acting like it's a great solution for everyone when really it's only a good solution for countries that currently already have the infrastructure for nuclear, or currently rely on fossil fuels and for some reason don't have a suitable climate for reliable solar, wind, geothermal or hydro. Nuclear is obviously better than fossil fuels but as someone in a country that already relies almost entirely on renewables and has for decades that is not a W. Arguments in favour of nuclear are not arguments that actually support setting up new nuclear plants in new areas (especially considering the insane time and cost involved), they're arguments against dumb shit like what Germany is doing.

[@parrot998]

Why do people have 0 clue about how half-life works? If the waste lasts hundreds or thousands or millions of years, that's a good thing! It means it's pretty stable and not giving off a lot of energy... Which is what you want... Do people not realize bananas are notably radioactive? So radioactive in fact they are used as a measurement of radiation... And literally all life in general is slightly radioactive... Low level radioactivity is a good thing. It allows a bunch of important processes to occur, not least of all being evolution. It's the stuff that fizzles out in weeks like iodine, or stuff that fizzles out in years but sticks in your body like radium that you need to worry about...

[@pansepot1490]

Poor science literacy. People fear what they don’t know.

[@facundocadaa9020]

I don't think that nuclear waste is a "good thing" but thankfully we can safely store it

[@cegesh1459]

No de know these things. Seems more like you don't know how this works and how almost imposible it is to contain this waist. At least for capitalists. They really don't care to shield us properly. You are just talking nonsense ans that's sad.

[@lil_weasel219]

That's not in fact how it works. Let me explain why "people are worried" When it comes to nuclear waste, the intensity of radiation a material emits is irrelevant. Highly radioactive isotopes that decay in a few days are the least concerning, Because you can just shove them in a metal barrel, and they are gone in a very short period of time. The slower decaying ones are an issue because over the massive lifetime of those materials, those barrels corrode, the waste seeps into the ground and overall presents a much bigger danger than the short half life ones., due to high unpredictability. Of a war happens, and the ground gets bombed, be prepared for a massive cloud of radioactive ground dust. edit: typos because of trash voice dictation

[@professionalgoob]

Thank the ground

[@leirbag1595]

I just kind of wish that all kinds of green energy were developped and supported. They all have big potential, and every place will benefit differently from each method because of their geological or economical situation. Kind of tired of seeing folks being all nuclear or all renewables without considering that the answer might be both.

[@danielshepard2315]

The problem with this line of thinking is we only have limited resources and time, so investing in highly expensive nuclear projects takes away time and resources that could be better spent on renewable projects. And nuclear is too expensive, carbon intensive, and slow to build to effectively reduce emissions. So when you take away resources from renewables to put them into nuclear projects, you are effectively delaying the response to climate change and causing more damage.

[@leirbag1595]

@@danielshepard2315 I agree with you, and honestly I don't like Nuclear energy all that much compared to renewables, given that it's still a limited resource it relies on, and there is the issue of sotckpiling its trash. Though I also realise that not everyone lives in a region that has a lot of means to utilise renewables properly. I live in Quebec, where our hydroelectricity is facilitated by our many rivers, but this kind of thing is pretty region-specific, so I can understand the attraction towards something that can just be done anywhere.

[@danielshepard2315]

@@leirbag1595 Yeah that's why you need to diversify renewable sources. For example, a city like Burlington Vermont is able to use 100% renewable energy for its power sources from a combination of wind, solar, hydro and biomass.

[@user-ht3sc3sz7h]

@@danielshepard2315 1) "We have limited time" is a completely nonsensical statement. If we stopped producing CO2 today we wouldn't get down to pre-industrial levels before 200 years. Considering renewables are a bullshit energy source with insanely low energy and power density, nuclear is a FAR better investment even if it takes a few more years to build. The idea that if we just plaster the world with solar panels we will avoid a catastrophy like steering the titanic away from the iceberg simply has no relationship with the reality of the phenomena at hand. 2) As an energy engineer, literally everything you said is the diametrical opposite of the truth: nuclear has higher initial investment costs, but since it has thousands of times the power density of renewables, costs per kWh of energy produced (also called Levelized cost of Electricity - LCOE) would be on par with renewables. EXCEPT, nuclear works 91-94% of the time (capacity factor), while solar's average CF is 15%, and wind's is 25% (IEA numbers) , so nuclear is way cheaper. ON TOP OF THAT, in order not to install a significant amount of renewables for nothing, you need batteries and other energy storage, which are incredibly expensive and have massive environmental and health impacts. 3) Nuclear is significantly less carbon intensive than renewables (IEA, UNECE) 4) Renewables put massive stress on power grids because they're intermittent, non-dispatchable and distributed, meaning in order to install enough of them you'd need an incredibly expensive complete overhaul of the electricity system. The insistence on renewables only is PRECISELY what's delaying the response to climate change, which is why the fossil fuel industry LOVES RENEWABLES because they know we will still be dependent on their product. Germany just closed its Thermonuclear plants. Its carbon intensity routinely reaches >900 gCO2/kWh. France is almost completely nuclear. They're carbon intensity is the lowest in Europe, at 20-40 gCO2/kWh.

[@andrewgreenwood9068]

This. It's also not lost on me that a lot of the political push for nuclear becoming the main form of generation is from fossil fuel companies because it takes so long to set up.

[@Inaf1987]

It's stuff like hysteria over Nuclear plants that makes me think the Right alone is not a 100% responsible for the climate change and also Geopolitical mess that we are in. It's true that Climate Change deniers on the right did not understand the gravity of the illness, but anti nuclear activists essentially threw a perfectly safe cost effective medicine out the window. And it's the same type that is also anti GMO.

[@GigasGMX]

The Hippies, man. They fucked us all.

[@FelisImpurrator]

It's because people who are into that line are basically smoking the same new age mystical bullshit from back when the American "left" was just hippie nonsense. They think magic and well wishes will fix our atmosphere or something.

[@danielshepard2315]

Cost effective? Nuclear is one of the least cost effective forms of energy production. Enormous costs, way too slow startup times, constant mining of uranium, and constant use of water when water is scarce are the main problems. Have you considered that Nuclear energy is not the magic bullet you think it is?

[@FelisImpurrator]

@@danielshepard2315 Uranium isn't the only form of nuclear fuel, and that's just the very first issue with your consistent bad takes.

[@danielshepard2315]

@@FelisImpurrator Let me guess, you are a throrium bro who thinks "don't worry bro, the uranium problem has been solved by technology that doens't exist yet" ?

[@budy859]

6:30 yeah totally agree modern airliners have so many systems to stop crashes it's crazy. You got multiple types of collision avoidance. You got readouts of everything. You have pilots that have to go threw a long training period to even be a co pilot.

[@autumnjacaranda106]

I‘M NUCLEAR I‘M WILD

[@nicolasnamed]

I'M BREAKING UP, INSIDE

[@sgtkasi]

A HEART OF BROKEN GLASS

[@HelloThere-xx1ct]

Every single person sent into Chernobyl in that dramatic scene from the show survived and lived full lives.

[@Jackvonblood]

And the same goes for everyone who breathes in toxic fumes from cars, or gets hit by them. You can do that all day for anything and everything. Nuclear energy is far safer than it was during Chernobyl. Chill.

[@lessimcdowell9897]

It’s not renewable, there’s only enough uranium for 100 years at current usage so in a century we’re going to have tons of nuclear waste and dirty bomb material and 0 nuclear power unless they figure out fusion

[@ball5942]

​@@Jackvonblood the show

[@TeeComedian]

IIRC there's a reactor diver still alive.

[@cegesh1459]

@@Jackvonblood No it's not save. Heck that's ignoring the radioactive waist and use of a lot of water.

[@tmgn7588]

It's not a question of pro or anti nuclear. You always have to take the existing system and your goals into account.

[@Dominator150395]

A couple more interesting things about aircraft safety: 1. Statistically, most aircraft accidents by far take place at takeoff or landing. That's why increasing the length of the flight doesn't lead to a proportional increase in the risk of accidents. 2. Aircraft maintenance is serious fucking business. Every single part in an airplane needs to be inspected on a specific schedule, otherwise the plane cannot legally fly. Likewise, any damage found needs to be reported and repaired immediately. Each airplane has an Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) and a Structural Repair Manual (SRM) that dictate what needs to be inspected and what repairs can be done, depending on the type and extent of the damage. If the damage is outside of what's written in the manual, it needs to be reported to the OEM (such as Boeing or Airbus), who will then prescribe an appropriate repair. 3. If an engine goes out mid-flight, a twin-engine aircraft can still continue to fly with one engine, though they will naturally land at the nearest airport if that happens. To that end, twin-engine are restricted to flying only in certain areas - namely, there must always be an airport that they can reach and land at within an hour in case of engine failure. This can be extended to as much as 6 hours with a program called ETOPS (Extended Twin-engine Operations), under the condition of a more stringent maintenance schedule. 3a. There has been a plane which successfully landed after *both* of its engines went out mid-flight, with zero casualties or injuries to its crew and passengers. Look up the "Gimli Glider".

[@Reticulan1]

Nuclear is our best option my only issue is waste management, currently in Ontario they want to drill boreholes and bury waste near populated areas and water sources, even if safe why truck nuclear waste across the country to one of the few areas with no major pollution issues where people still get thier water from Wells and springs and risk destroying prestine land and water.

[@goodpol5022]

Most BASED thing Vaush has ever said. Unironically

[@korayven9255]

The important thing to remember about oil and the US is that the US is not dependent on foreign oil. The US's *allies* are. Japan and South Korea are highly dependent on foreign oil. Europe to a lesser extent, but still quite dependent.

[@grandgibbon2071]

The price of oil is also driven by the global market. The texas oil people Arnt selling way under the global market domestically, they would rather just export it out.

[@korayven9255]

@@grandgibbon2071 Except the US federal government can, *and has,* rerouted that production towards a purely domestic market before. The downside in this scenario is that it would screw their allies over. This leads back to my initial point: the US is not dependent on foreign oil; it's *allies* are. A lot of seemingly nonsensical foreign policies the US does is in actuality due to their desire to help and keep their allies secure.

[@GKQ333]

milton friedman taught me the most ethical thing to do is make the company money lol

[@sarbe6625]

5:20 this is why whenever someone leaves and I am saying goodbye I allways add in a "drive safe"

[@cayden1710]

I know Friendlyjordies isn't a good debater (and he'll tell you that), but he's the most prominent pro-renewables anti-nuclear voice that springs to mind, so I can't help myself but to want a convo with him on that... granted jordies has his plate full at the moment, being taken to court by the state gambling lobby and what have you

[@salpon]

Just look at what happened when he debated people on nuclear energy before. Instead of addressing the topic itself, he attacked the person. It's his usual go-to tactic if you think about it. He's a great investigative journalist, but a very poor debater, and not much of an intellectual imo.

[@crappozappo]

I love how the comments sections of those vids are almost 100% like "sheesh jordies I normally agree with you but you really dropped the ball this time" it is very funny.

[@underplague6344]

Scp-V: When vaush breaks

[@OryxAU]

Nuclear is the only realistic way forward at the moment. We would be much further in research if we just funded it, but no, we have to deal with the underdeveloped renewables infrastructure in a time where our energy needs are being weaponized against us. Or you know, the planet can take another one for the team, just double down on fossil fuels. hAhA

[@Poindogindustries]

Ehhhhh…. I’m not so sure. Nuclear is great in theory but are we really gonna have hundreds of nuclear plants in South America, Africa, developing Asian countries etc. Nuclear is a pretty western-centric power source and since energy needs in 2nd/3rd world countries are only going up, IMO our money is about 10x better spent on making renewables and storage more affordable for everyone.

[@MrDeaf]

@@Poindogindustries Yes. It's not like they are completely devoid of a smart workforce that can be trained to safely use nuclear energy.

[@Poindogindustries]

@@MrDeaf technically possible: yes. Politically possible: no. I don’t think the west would be too happy if the DRC, Iran, or Malaysia started building a bunch of centrifuges

[@am45_001]

At this point, when I keep looking at what's going on with climate change, I have several joker moments, sometimes at the same time

[@OryxAU]

@@Poindogindustries In the future sure, but right now, no. It's not viable economically or physically. The technology is just not there yet. Nuclear is here already, and we can make it safer. Not only that but there are potential avenues of research to make sure it cannot be used for weapons and fuel sources that stop reacting in the event of a failure. These aren't far fetched ideas, there's testing right now on fusion, and sure there could be something there, but that money moved into safe nuclear is a shorter term goal that could change the game on nuclear technology.

[@TheKitsuneCavalier]

As a GenX-er who was born in the mid 1970's, I can definitely remember when Chernobyl happened. However, my only memory of Three Mile Island, is that a movie called "The China Syndrome" existed, but I had no idea what it was about. Over four decades later, and I have yet to watch it; even though it has Jack Lemon from "Grumpy Old Men." 🤷‍♀️

[@DevinPlaysitAll]

China Syndrome came out before three mile island

[@TheKitsuneCavalier]

Oh! Thank you. Well I still don't remember Thee Mile Island, at the time that it happened. I may have only heard about it when Chernobyl happened, and it was compared with Three Mile Island. . . . EGADS! "The China Syndrome" was *released* to theaters 12 DAYS before the Three Mile Island disaster! Predictive programming conspiracy theorists must have a field day when they discover *that* coincidence!

[@slumburger1145]

My issue with the Nuclear Energy debate is that it almost always turns into a "Nuclear vs Solar/Wind/Hydro/etc" debate, which is just entirely a waste of time imo. Both have pros and cons and neither of them on their own are the "solution" to climate change. It's like saying becoming a vegan, buying electric cars, or simply recycling will "fix" climate change. None of these are the "solution" to climate change, they're all part of the EQUATION to fix climate change. Climate Change isn't just "garbage in the water and poison in the sky", it's a systemic issue that needs to be solved systemically through multiple changes to how we produce our energy and consume products.

[@danielshepard2315]

Nuclear is not part of the equation, because it's too expensive, too slow, and too carbon intensive to be a viable option. Resources spent on Nuclear would almost always be better spent on renewables.

[@Donthaveacowbra]

I'm pro nuclear for those wondering but nuclear current hurdles to overcome aren't what a lot of people think. For one it's capital. Thus far nearly ever nuclear power plant has been one off builds which make them incredibly pricey. Now even with that they're still competitive. However they are also stopped by delays in building and all the while you're burning through money to build it with no income in. Meanwhile a renewable or gas turbine it's easy to set up and even at same price will cost you less in interest. The economics are killing nuclear and this is a major issue we need to tackle vs the tech really. In top of that it's an assumption the demand will be there when you're built. If it's not then what?

[@MrDeaf]

Wasn't there a small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) being developed? SMR can be fitted onto a few containers.

[@MalachioftheForest]

Part of the costs have to do with the expertise and time involved in building them. It takes a lot of material, machining and welding to build the reactor components.

[@gabrielsatter]

@@MalachioftheForest Thank God windmills and solar panels build themselves.

[@lil_weasel219]

@@gabrielsatter they dont. Yet they are much easier to build.

[@gabrielsatter]

@@lil_weasel219 All alternative to fossil fuels should be used where appropriate. Geothermal, nuclear, tidal. You name it. When the grid and storage are ready, we can make the switch to renewable. Any amount e spend pales in comparison to repairing the effects to the system is we do nothing.

[@davitdavid7165]

I have heard that with how fast climate change is and how much time it takes to approve and build a nuclear plant and with all of the c02 released during construction, building new nuclear plants is going to be impractical. It is also top expensive for developing nations. That being said, I fully support running all existing plants and oppose all fearmongering about nuclear waste and explosions.

[@LWylie]

Takes 10-15 years, and you're repeating an argument said 10-15 years ago. And others will be saying it still 10-15 years from now. And everyone looks around and says, "Hey, why didn't you do anything."

[@YUNoJump154]

@@LWylie the thing is that lots of renewables can be built in that time. You’re right, it would have been great to start on big nuclear infrastructure a decade or so ago, but at this point it’d be easier for many countries to just focus on lots of renewables so that we can get off fossil fuel as quickly as possible. Places with lots of access to renewable energy (eg Australia’s giant sunny centre) may not need that much nuclear when solar is abundant, easier to build, and easier to push for politically.

[@XMysticHerox]

@@LWylie Apathy is an entirely seperate issue. Fact is nuclear costs more and takes way longer than solar and wind. So why the fuck should we build nuclear? Explain that to me please.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@XMysticHerox Because we need energy. A lot. We need a tremendous amount of juice, yesterday. We need green hydrogen, we need green ferilizers, we need to use inefficient processes to replace fossil fuels. They come at a silly energy cost, so we don't do things that could replace fossil fuels even though it would be in our best interest to do them. Building renewables is racing the problem. Congrats, you're replacing fossil fuels in the grid with renewables. What about the fossil fuel that's not used in the grid? Let's produce jet fuel and fertilizers off wind. Ahah. Not happening. So in the time it would have taken you to plan, approve and build a nuke plant while also building renewables on the side you'd have gone through 1-3 year cycles of "we need more energy" and refusing to look at our *REAL* needs without getting fooled by grid percentages and how well we're doing at replacing fossil fuels.

[@XMysticHerox]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Which is exactly why we don't want nuclear?? It is less power per money invested and takes *way* longer to build. Also I am confused by the second part. Do you think nuclear can create ferilizer?

[@montgomeryburns6451]

Everyday, I ask the same question.

[@danielshepard2315]

Enormous costs, way too slow startup times, constant mining of uranium, and constant use of water when water is scarce are the main problems.

[@salpon]

@@danielshepard2315 Water is certainly not scarce on planet Earth.

[@salpon]

@@danielshepard2315 Nuclear requires less mining than literally any other form of energy generation. Energy density matters.

[@danielshepard2315]

@@salpon Buddy, have you heard the entire western united states is experiencing historic droughts almost every year and that the Colorado river has lost over 20% of it's water?

[@salpon]

@@danielshepard2315 Have you heard of the ocean?

[@alrecks619]

based and nukepilled

[@MB-bl4nl]

The problem isn’t that nuclear is bad, it’s that all funding into potential options for nuclear energy should be going into development of green energy. $1trillion in renewables + $1trillion in nuclear is simply less efficient than $2trillion in a single source, and between the two, renewables are cheaper. We should absolutely be keeping current nuclear plants open though, closing them is pointless.

[@chiangkaishrek5123]

Renewables are less cost effective than nuclear, it should all go to nuclear first and then we can think about using renewables

[@XMysticHerox]

@@chiangkaishrek5123 Er no? Renewables are more cost effective and the trend is good. While nuclear is getting more expensive.

[@Khalkara]

Or how about in stead we first invest in what we know will cover our energy needs 100% and then we use the money we used to use on fossil fuel energy to develop other green energy? There are plenty of places where renewables alone are not enough to meet energy demands, mainly inland countries with few rivers. Its not a dichotomy, we can both develop renewables and invest in nuclear.

[@XMysticHerox]

@@Khalkara We know renewables can cover our needs and they are more cost effective so yes let's invest in them. And no we cannot really invest in both. Not with current nuclear plants. They don't complement each other as both mainly serve to provide non dispatchable power. Nuclear has received hundreds of billions in research funding and it's not getting cheaper. Solar and wind have received a fraction of that and are already cheaper with a clear trene dtowards becoming even more effective. Dispatchable nuclear is something to look at. Current technology however is not something that should be further invested in. Certainly not over renewable tech.

[@Khalkara]

@@XMysticHerox Ok let's hear it then, cite the studies that prove that renewables alone can cover our energy needs in every place on earth. "And no we cannot really invest in both." Are we incapable of funding social welfare as well as foreign wars? I don't think you realize how dumb you sound when you say this.

[@packratpirate4154]

Me when literally no down sides

[@danielshepard2315]

Enormous costs, way too slow startup times, constant mining of uranium, and constant use of water when water is scarce are the main problems.

[@chiangkaishrek5123]

@@danielshepard2315 cry about it

[@danielshepard2315]

@@chiangkaishrek5123 lol wtf

[@chiangkaishrek5123]

@@danielshepard2315 Anti-nuclear soyjack

[@danielshepard2315]

@@chiangkaishrek5123 No idea wtf that means

[@iv2sab512]

There are a few problems with nuclear energy. 1. It's expensive. 2. It creates toxic radioactive waste that is dangerous for thousands of years. 3. It has already had two catastrophic events (Chernobyl and Fukushima) and one close call (Three Mile Island). 4. The nuclear plants in Ukraine point to another obvious danger: that the plants could be blown up (most likely inadvertently, though who can be sure) leading to another catastrophic event like Chernobyl, though possibly worse if multiple reactors are affected. It seems to me that it would be better to spend our time and resources on renewable resources and in reducing our use of energy (through gains in building efficiency, public transport, working from home where possible, etc.).

[@Khalkara]

1) Cost is irrelevant. We're trying to save the human race. 2) Said waste can be safely and cheaply stored, also some kinds of waste can be broken down so that it is no longer dangerous. 3) There are 1000s if not 100.000s of catastrophic events that stem from the supply chain of fossil power. You're ignoring all the downsides of fossil fuel and then only focusing on the perceived downsides of nuclear. We can both spend time and resources on renewables whilst simultaneously investing in nuclear. Stop with this dumb false dichotomy.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

I volunteer to have a hole dug under my basement to store nuclear waste. I'm sick of this non-issue. Fukushima wasn't as bad as you think. The problem with Fukushima is that all the jobs left, and the Japanese government wants people to move back there to stop paying compensation to the people displaced. So the Fukushima refugees don't want to go back as they feel they're being used after losing their livelihood.

[@MikewithaK]

Someone asked Vaush at the end if developers have a code of ethics. The answer is, officially no. I don't know how new it is, but as a software developer I was required to take a course on ethics in programming, and it is an issue that comes up a lot. But software developers are not like doctors, we're not required to take any kind of oath that we have to adhere to. Also, we are no unionized, so if a company goes against our code of ethics there's nothing, we can do about it, they'll just hire someone that will do what they want. Technically speaking, we do have a code of ethics, one is outlined by the ACM (association for computing machinery) and the IEEE. But this is not widely adopted, or taught in all places, so some devs may not be aware that it exists. And companies definitely don't care. Side note: the exact scenario of self-driving cars comes up in our ethics courses.

[@ow124-k3z]

My issues with nuclear aren't the technical side in the slightest, extraordinary circumstances aside, we have that nailed down pretty well it seems. Even the waste side is fairly solveable. For me it's the fact that Uranium is a geographically restricted resource, and as a result access to it is contingent (currently) on the good will of foreign nations to trade it. Further, in terms of human rights and free determination, as far as I know many countries that extract uranium (whether through private or public bodies) do so with dubious methods or via quite coercive deals that infringe on local people's rights. EDIT: jesus christ the agressiveness in the replies

[@DinggisKhaaniMagtaal]

Look up the Church Rock uranium tailings spill. Our nation is included.

[@MalachioftheForest]

Uranium isn't the only fuel used in reactors

[@adambelanger3976]

Then use thorium reactors. Apparently its 5000 tons extracted on the way to mining the uranium currently used and you can built the reactors so meltdowns are physically impossible. The main problem is just the funding.

[@PumpkinSpicePretzels]

Technically the nuclear industry is horribly inefficient based on entrapping it to the depleted uranium sellers (like gun manufacturers to the NRA and the NRA to the US government) as well as to lax security requirements for adequate building and maintenance. Thorium breeder reactors can't melt down but they're heavily opposed by the current nuclear racket.

[@sacwingedbatsatadbitsad4346]

So is fucking literally everything else. Even food and drinking water often rely on international trade. "It's not literally perfect" isn't a rebuttal to "it's objectively better", and if you won't settle for better, you'll be left with worse.

[@crappozappo]

The wind actually does blow at night also

[@ForbiddTV]

Depends on location, but winds are reduced at night. Most every night my wind machine produces no energy.

[@citizenVader]

The world is not ending. Humanity might end, but the planet keeps on living

[@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan]

Motorcycles are probably even more dangerous than cars

[@AndyMorrisArt]

We have been producing more oil than we use since 2010 but since our oil is not Nationalized the federal govt. can't really control the price of oil domestically, instead the global market has a greater influence on the price we pay for oil and thereby gasoline, even though if we wanted to we could Nationalize our Petroleum Resources and effectively every citizen would own a share in the oil profits, and even if price at the pump remained the same, every citizen would get an Oil Dividend every Quarter.

[@lil_weasel219]

In my country Croatia nuclear talking points are in any significant capacity only used by the right wing to sabotage the transition to renewables. I think everyone would appreciate if you did more research on this topic, because its much more complicated than many "nuclear is da wey, nuclear nuclear nuclear idc about the rest" types present it. Theres a lot of fear-mongering about nuclear, but there are also legitimate issues w it.

[@danielshepard2315]

It's the same way in the states, nuclear talking points are mainly pushed by the right wing to sabotage renewables. Enormous costs, way too slow startup times, constant mining of uranium, and constant use of water when water is scarce are the main problems with nuclear. I don't know why so many leftists are convinced it's some kind of magic bullet solution, I think maybe because it seems cool and futuristic?

[@chiangkaishrek5123]

I’ve written an entire research paper on nuclear, it’s way more efficient than renewables, that’s just the statistics, if you have optimal wind turbine placement and maximum power generation from it, it’s equal to nuclear in terms of cost per unit of power created. Otherwise, nuclear is actually responsible for less deaths than renewables like wind annually, the construction of which surprisingly kills more than nuclear does, hydro is way better than nuclear though if I remember correctly since hardly anyone dies from it, meanwhile millions die from coal production annually.

[@KlausJLinke]

@@chiangkaishrek5123 Did your research paper get accepted? All the ones that did seem to show that wind is currently much cheaper per kWh. _"the construction of which surprisingly kills more than nuclear does"_ An argument on the level of "IV drips cause less choking deaths, so let's feed all people intravenously". You need less uranium than coal by weight, so the mining may cause fewer deaths, but I'd like a source on the "millions" of dead miners. Millions do die because of coal, but that's air pollution and climate crisis, not the mining.

[@lil_weasel219]

@@chiangkaishrek5123 i have seen the death statics. Theres no statistic for "renewables" since they arent a single energy source. Instead wind is deadlier than nuclear and nuclear deadlier than solar "Its way more efficient" what does that even mean.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@lil_weasel219 efficiency = output / input.

[@Luis-vx1tx]

Okay I think we've got the wrong target when it comes to oil consumption. We don't run our grid off oil. We run our transportation sector off oil. To reduce that, we need walkabout, bike-able cities, and an inter continental electric system.

[@VagabondTE]

Check out micro nuclear. Basically instead of building one giant reactor we build lots of little ones. Whenever that gets off the ground there's no issue. Severely reduced waste, minimal chance of accidents, and no real damage if it does. Can't have a meltdown if there isn't much there to work with.

[@vyxxer]

I'll admit i do have knee jerk reaction to the thought of it given the history of atomic sciences. But so long as the data denies my fears i'm okay with it.

[@dragunov815]

Nuclear energy is awesome.

[@philliphessel6788]

Solar and wind ‘farms’ also have a greater impact on wildlife habitat than a fission plant with the same output. This however is not an issue with putting solar panels on structures that would be there anyway. Decentralization is actually one of the advantages of Earth-based solar. A community (even a single household) can have energy self-sufficiency. Considering a diversity of technologies enables tailoring solutions to local conditions. Compared with a “one size fits all” approach, that can yield more pleasing aesthetics and synergy with the local economy along with raw efficiency.

[@philliphessel6788]

We can _store_ power for use when the Sun is not shining on us.

[@tylerdonaldson7271]

There’s a nuclear power plant an hour south from me and it’s right on the ocean, every couple of years they dump waste into the oceans shutting down the beaches surrounding it for a week or two, I just don’t think this is very environmentally friendly. Although this is my own personal experience, I want to learn more about its pros or if there’s ways to make nuclear power 100% safe

[@TheSpeep]

My main problem with nuclear energy right now is that in many cases it takes too long to geta new plant up and running for the rate climate change is going as it stands. Theyre absolutely useful to invest in, but theyre not the full solution.

[@jeffc5974]

You should come out to west texas some time, and go to places where you can see dozens of pumpjacks all at once. Yes, Texas has a shit ton of oil.

[@VooshSpokesman]

Love from a Hunter Avalone and Xanderhal Fan!

[@philliphessel6788]

A significant problem with nuclear power is that, with our present infrastructure, it takes about quarter century just to break even on the carbon emissions that go into building it. Global warming has become such a pressing issue that the quicker emission reduction possible with solar is more attractive. Regarding safety, my understanding is that, per unit of power delivered, the solar industry - even before considering the associated electric battery industry - causes more human casualties (not by a little, but by a couple of orders of magnitude). Casualties from the fossil fuels industry - before considering global warming - are some orders of magnitude greater yet. With climate change, solar is expected to save more lives than it costs. It appears to me very likely that most of the solar casualties are a consequence of how callously capitalists are exploiting labor in poor countries with little protection for workers compared with the main consumer countries. My sad expectation is that inaction will leave us worse off at mid-century than if we had begun a nuclear-power push today. Outer-space solar is the Holy Grail until we get to colonizing the outer system (for which we’ll want artificial fusion plants). I’ve been saying all my life that we should stop waging wars against each other and cooperate in the more rewarding adventure of pioneering outer space.

[@longlivethesheet4561]

Reject green, embrace Fallout

[@amerashi1111]

Nuclear is green though

[@codeinecowboy8607]

We already have the xenophobia, fear of communism, and rampant capitalism, we’re checking off the whole list for that timeline lmao

[@goodpol5022]

Almighty ratio

[@m.f.3347]

@@amerashi1111 glowing bright green (this is a joke I'm pro nuclear)

[@Dryniel]

@@amerashi1111 not sure what you mean by green. If you mean renewable, then no. Uranium is a limited resource that will one day run out. If you are talking about emissions, then yes. Nuclear produces far fewer emissions than fossil fuel

[@FortuitousOwl]

I don't think pro or anti is really a dichotomy that exists for most people nor should we make it one. the reality is if we are going to stop climate change we need to invest in many types of renewable energies including nuclear.

[@TURBOMIKEIFY]

Turbulence makes me sick. I hate the lack of control I have in planes. Like if your friend is a reckless driver, and you have to hold on to that "hanger" on the pillars of the car.

[@wadeperry4294]

If anybody wants a deep dive on the actual costs of nuclear energy for people, look up The Soup Emporium Chernobyl.

[@twixerclawford]

By the way the "Tesla cars turn off autopilot in order to blame their drivers for a crash" isn't true - Tesla considers any accident as "related to its autopilot system" if it happens anytime within 15 seconds after the autopilot has been turned off. Also, Teslas get significantly in fewer accidents per mile (1.4m miles driven per accident) than the average car (0.5m miles driven per accident), autopilot or not.

[@XMysticHerox]

Solar and wind are cheaper with a tiny fraction of the research funding nuclear has had. And yes powering the world with renewables is feasible. There is just little point in building new nuclear plants.

[@sds7995]

it is impossible to power a country with solar and wind alone, solar and wind don't work all the time and energy can't be stored therfore you need gas/coal/oil/nuclear as a back up

[@XMysticHerox]

@@sds7995 It's not. Maybe look up the research? There is an entire wikipedia list just for the various papers and reports that say you are wrong.

[@sds7995]

@@XMysticHerox link it up, I'd love to see how to power a country with solar and wind alone

[@XMysticHerox]

@@sds7995 Just search for 100% renewable wikipedia. Which you could have just done before asking. KZbin doesn't like links before you get yourself shadow banned btw.

[@XMysticHerox]

@Christopher Grant 70% of energy investment is currently going into renewables. Trend upwards. So yes they are doing it. Also following your logic nuclear is literally completely useless because barely anyone is investing in it and literally only China is investing in a major way. But I know you don't have a serious position here beyond "nuclear good" and are just making whatever argument.

[@thatoneguyinthecomments2633]

Fairly large number of train deaths are suicides, not too many suicide by planes.

[@littlefish1069]

Because the majority of nuclear power plants in the US were meant to be rebuilt like twenty years ago I don’t hate nuclear but I sure do hate nuclear waste

[@synthstatic9889]

We should maintain present nuclear capacity but the problem with building new plants - other than the optics - is that it will be at least a decade until you see a watt of power out of them. We can build a lot of solar in the same amount of time.

[@bitey-facepuppyguy2038]

I think that one of the problems that nuclear energy faces in 2022 is the memory of Fukushima. It is particularly unfortunate that the whole Fukushima disaster was largely the result of using a seawall only 6 meters high where a 15 meter one was needed. It has been argued that there was no historical precedent for a tsunami of the magnitude of the 2011 one, but the existence of prehistoric tsunami of comparable size could easily have been recognized by better geological studies of coastal sediments, such as the ones that have been done in the Pacific Northwest of the USA. Japan was in a hurry to get out of nuclear power after this disaster and public fear in other countries also increased pressure to end nuclear power production, even to the point of decommissioning existing plants that still had plenty of useful life.

[@GigasGMX]

for-profit nuclear in areas vulnerable to the sorts of disasters that can damage nuclear power plants is a bad idea. What we need is state-run nuclear power plants.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@GigasGMX State run wouldn't change a thing because people running state enterprises also cover their own ass. The whole ring of fire area in the Pacific is "vulnerable to disasters". Has that stopped humans? No. Forget the sea wall. Fukushima would have been saved by just placing the electrical components anywhere other than the basement. The reactors survived the earthquake. The reactors survived the tsunami. Unprecedented disaster? Nothingburger. No sweat. Unbreakable. What went wrong? Generators and switching boards placed in basements which got flooded. When backup generators were flown in and plugged into the system to run the pumps, the electrical subsystems being flooded prevented the pumps from restarting. That's what pisses me off about Fukushima - the nuclear part shurgged off the damage despite the insufficient sea wall.

[@peteo3436]

Nuclear costs too much and it takes to long to set up a new nuclear power plant. Its as simple as renewable energy and storage is cheaper and easier and faster to set up than a new nuclear power plant. Check out the report by the peak Australian government science body CSIRO on the subject GenCost: annual electricity cost estimates for Australia 2021-22 Sure, its for an Australian context but the difference between the US and Australia isn't that great in terms of politics, space, environmental regulations and workforce. Also, nuclear power plants rely on subsidies already in the US to survive. Look up the subsidies that Ohio energy company Energy Harbour gets just to keep its nuclear power plants operating.

[@DubberssMcgee]

All energy companies get subsidies. Really everything you threw out was none issues. Capital? Cool the U.S. essentially has infinite money. Time? Oh I guess lets wait another 30 years to get started then. Space literally isn't an issue in this country. Storage there are already spots picked out that are absolutely safe. Nimbys just need to be walked over in regards to this they are holding everyone up for completely illogical reasons. Multiple forms of energy should be pursued and nuclear is the best option at the moment by far. It will continue to be for some time to come as well.

[@jakeevans6404]

Nuclear lobbies are so powerful in pedalling all this bullshit about how they are just as needed for a green future as renewables entirely because they are entirely reliant on lobbying to survive. They are so god damn expensive.

[@peteo3436]

@Christopher Grant Is this true? Where can I confirm this?

[@jakeevans6404]

There's not been a single nuclear power plant thats been able to turn a profit period. Ignoring subsidies for the moment, the average nuclear mega-watt cost 150 and has only been gong up, not showing any indication of getting cheaper with upscaling, whilst renewables have drastically reduced in price from over 300 for solar in 2010 to under 60 per mwh in 2019. Onshore wind went from like 85 to 55 in that same time period. Strip it back to this and it's just flat out wrong to consider nuclear more economical than renewables, and in the time it takes to set one of the fuckers up even ignoring how often they get delayed you could set up a renewable energy farm 5 times over.

[@AlphaNexusOmega]

To the comment to vaush about engineers having a code of ethics it only really matters when the engineer is the Professional Engineer (PE) someone who either consults/signs design specs to the government or company. Usually only in building specs or bridge specs unfortunately. There is no code of ethics in the private industry, you do what the company tells you to or your fired simple as that.

[@xanderbeaky4546]

I did a big research project on nuclear energy in high school ( still in high school), and my main issue with it was that at our current global rates of consumption, we would run out of uranium in 90 years, less if we make a big investment. New breeder reactor technology could prolong this significantly, by producing more fissure material than they consume, but that tech doesn't seem developed enough to work properly at-scale. If we put heavy research into technology to be able to access more of the planets uranium and we make breeder reactors commercially viable then nuclear could be a good long term choice (hundreds of years). Otherwise I'd be in favor of heavy research for renewable energy. Nuclear could be good short term until renewable is able to work at scale. TLDR: Non-renewability of nuclear is a much bigger issue than safety. Thats what I determined from my research at least, lmk what yall think.

[@crappozappo]

By basing your analysis in _reality_ you have concluded that nuclear may not be the most renewable. This may make some nerds mad but you are nonetheless correct. Edited because you didn't say nuclear was bad, I can't read Seriously though, pro nuclear people straw man anti nuclear people, saying we only care about safety and fearmongering, in reality the cost and time are the reasons

[@placeholdername0000]

Uranium can be extracted from the ocean. It's a bit expensive to do so, but there are vast quantities of uranium in the ocean. Also, it gets replenished as erosion exposes uranium minerals and rainwater dissolves it and carries it into the ocean. Many milliania worth of uranium, just waiting to be extracted, at a cost where most reactors would still be competitive.

[@thatdarnskag5043]

Woah oh oh OH oh, Woah oh oh OH I’m Radioactive, Radioactive! Woah oh oh OH oh, Woah oh oh OH I’m Radioactive, Radioactive! (P.S. I’m pro-nuclear I just think it’s catchy, which might be nuclear cringe to some)

[@thekingoffailure9967]

Imagine Homosexuals

[@benjaminmatheny6683]

The other point of thought is Train deaths include people getting hit, people who aren't riding the train. It might not seem like trains have fatal crashes, but that is a full train crash. Train hits someone, it is the same as an individual car crash; too small to make national news.

[@disappointedoptimist255]

Also I imagine a small number of people get murdered on trains still, which just never will happen on a plane

[@treydonnell2871]

Idk nuclear state with high population illinois (we have the highest amount of nuclear in the nation with eleven reactors at six sites generating 50% of our power. And these I think are mostly old so if update could likely produce a much larger amounts. Power outages at least in my city simply don't happen because of supply issues. Though I do believe they can be an issue in Chicago during peak temperature seasons. But this is true for most states. But yeah cheap and plentiful nuclear energy here. I just can't go against it. It's literally not even a factor in our daily lives I never even really noticed it.

[@treydonnell2871]

@Christopher Grant or by just having the ability to produce more power through nuclear. And we could sell what we don't use to the rest of the midwest grid. Nuclear can handle this problem just find. Unless you're using it as a peak answer but you could simply produce more power than you need and sell the rest during non peak hours.

[@treydonnell2871]

@Christopher Grant okay so your solar is much cheaper statement is questionable. Illinois has some of the cheapest energy rates I the country as far as I'm concerned and that's with 50% of our energy being generated with ancient tech. Solar of it is cheaper its because it's subsidized so heavily by the government. I personally have a really big problem with the carbon footprint of making solar panels. (Burning carbon is literally a step and required material for them) additionally. The cost to operate massive fields seems counterproductive me. Additionally I feel like....actually know that modern facicilities would create cheaper energy especially if our government invested in advancing nuclear the way they do solar and wind. I like the reliability of nuclear. Weather doesn't matter. And solar and wind both need to be heated to operate effective in cold temperatures. Nuclear just works always and doesn't need the method of production to be replaced every 20 to 30 years.

[@treydonnell2871]

@Christopher Grant essentially I still think solar needs massive improvements before it viable.

[@treydonnell2871]

@Christopher Grant I do understand what you're saying it feels like you're just not reading what I'm saying. It's likely only cheaper because of the research and investment put into. Just like there was once a time when nuclear was cheaper than solar because it had more research and investment at the time.

[@treydonnell2871]

@Christopher Grant I would suggest research into srms personally. It's an evolution of the current nuclear tech that doesn't require us to build the huge costly and time consuming facilities we currently do. And would lower the cost drastically.

[@snarkylive]

Easy: Land is finite, nuclear ruins land permanently. You can never rebuild on that site again.

[@myboysd5772]

Nuclear waste can be contained efficiently and safely, i think you might be referring to a disaster like Chernobyl. Global warming tends to do that too

[@bergmansvea8739]

Hmm, with the amount of new advances in science it seems pretty medieval to bet hard on nuclear, although I’m not very educated on energy production in the US. Hydro, Wind and solar can probably more reliably be quicker in results.

[@crappozappo]

The rule of thumb is nuclear takes 10+years, solar or wind takes 18 months. And nuclear is 10x more expensive to set up. Almost forgot

[@ForbiddTV]

@@crappozappo Nuclear is cheaper than ruinables when all factors are considered

[@mattcraftien974]

That not how "exponentialy" work...

[@nacl1697]

Thorium is highly overlooked for nuclear energy

[@danielshepard2315]

It's not overlooked, the technology just doesn't exist yet

[@danielshepard2315]

@Christopher Grant The technology to produce thorium reactors reliably or on any kind of large scale does not exist

[@TheReykjavik]

Nuclear energy is too expensive to be worth significant investment, and the prices for nuclear are going up while other renewables are getting cheaper. The reason nuclear energy is as safe as it is is because we invest resources in making it safe, if we did nuclear cheaply, it wouldn't be anywhere near as safe, and it probably won't ever be cheaper than other sustainable energy sources.

[@PumpkinSpicePretzels]

I love nuclear energy. I love it so much that I think our industrialized highly-inefficient depleted uranium way of doing it should be replaced with thorium breeder reactors.

[@johanandersson8252]

Is it hate towards Nuclear Family energy or just regular Nuclear energy.

[@gentlydirking4912]

I feel like using the statistics of per person per mile travelled isn't the best comparison, like it weights in favour of planes and trains over cars. Like they obviously win out, but crashes per hour of operation feels like a better metric to compare.

[@rodanone4895]

gen X. HUGE proponent of nuclear power and i lived in Pennsylvania during three mile island. it wasn't the problem it was sold as. and i feel like the petroleum/coal industry lobby and push for negative attention for nuclear energy. bring it on. planes are the safest. driving would be safer if people didn't all consider themselves 9/10 as drivers...

[@carlogaytan7010]

Yeah now, SMRs, tiny reactors are safer than a big one.

[@0witw047]

SMRs aren't viable, not compared to renewables

[@carlogaytan7010]

@@0witw047 they already exist, and approves by EPA, but like all power plants, they take time and money to build and get online. On the other hand, your right, off shore turbines can be built quicker.

[@danielshepard2315]

@@carlogaytan7010 I don't see any situation in which putting resources into nuclear reactors is a better use than putting them into renewable sources

[@carlogaytan7010]

@@danielshepard2315 nuclear is renewable, and it lasts longer and is more predictable than other sources, other than Tidal/ Wind, which both aren't as efficient and take up more space. All of these take time and money to build. I already talked to a Mechanical Engineer at my UC and they acknowledge that Nuclear is the best option, only that they take alot of time and money to get set up. He manages the Solar Farm we have and they last about 20 years slowly going down in output. So if you are thinking long term/ efficiency nuclear is the way to to. In the short term Wind and Off shore turbines are the best options.

[@danielshepard2315]

@@carlogaytan7010 No it's not, nuclear by definition is not renewable, Uranium is not a renewable resource. Renewable sources are much more efficient, In mid-2019, new wind and solar generators competed efficiently against even existing nuclear power plants in cost terms, and grew generating capacity faster than any other power type. Nuclear takes way too long to build, and it isn't cost effective. It's much more sustainable, cheaper and easier to build a solar panel or wind turbine that will last for 20-25 years and is 100% recyclable, than it is to build a multi billion dollar nuclear plant that takes 10-20 years just to be planned and built in the first place, and then requires a constant uranium supply and fresh water supply to cool reactors, as well as costing another half a billion dollars to decommission at the end of it's lifespan.

[@skadi6750]

Chernobyl and the fact nuclear powerplant theory is wayyy to complicated for most people to really understand. And people are afraid of stuff they dont understand. I mean, huge portion of the population didnt yet get to the point of understanding whats sexual assault, how can you expect them to understand the nucleus:-D

[@MyGraveDancer]

I think it's because people don't understand it. Like the chatter who said about nuclear disasters making places unlivable for thousands of years. That's not true, right? For a couple of generations - yes, but not for thousands of years.

[@logarhythmic6859]

People also have a huge problem with the waste, but the really dangerous stuff that has a half life of tens of thousands of years is only produced in small quantities. The combined total of all of that type of waste we've produced since the beginning of nuclear technology could fit within a football field. And we've developed very robust ways to contain this waste, and there has never been a single recorded instance of these containment units leaking.

[@lolwutno]

Based and nukepilled

[@cynicalmemester1694]

The problem with nuclear energy is its production cost and the time it takes to build a nuclear plant. Not to mention how difficult it is to remove a nuclear power plant. Our high quality uranium reserves are also depleting fairly quickly and we'll be left with low quality ones. Though it seems that the ocean has a fuck ton of uranium for us to harvest.

[@Khalkara]

The cost isn't going to outweigh the cost of having a world inhospitable for humans. And the fact that it takes long to build is only an argument to start immediately, and to scold the people who said years before that it shouldn't be done. These aren't rea problems.

[@sds7995]

France spent 200B for its nuclear energy, Germany spent 600B for its renewable energy, guess who's going better?

[@alvisstalwart925]

This is one of those isses where people who like to pretend conservative policy is solely responsible for issues when we have a bunch of non-conservatives engaging in conservative thinking patterns when it comes to a select few issues. All of the flailing and falling back on oil and gas bumper sticker propaganda is incredibly embarrassing and makes the case for reducing carbon emissions look like pie-in-the-sky thinking. Libs and fellow lefties, please engage with the world as it exists, and not just how you want it to be. We do not have the luxury of writing off perfectly safe and functional forms of energy generation so we can adhere to your particular ideal because you're scared of one particular set of spicy rocks over another. Get over yourselves ffs.

[@jerryhampton5755]

I remember when it took three years for us to lose more Americans in Russia he Iraq and Afghan are combined then we lost in one year to car accidents in my state alone.

[@stormyprawn]

Hard disagree with Vaush on "domestic oil fracking > importing oil" The problem with fracking is not only that it extracts more oil, but that it's REALLY environmentally harmful and dangerous to people who live nearby to fracking operations.

[@anarchohelenism]

honestly if we called it something else and not "nuclear" a lot more people would be on board with it.

[@Khalkara]

Ain't that the sad truth. The same goes for a lot of things, people are dumb.

[@russellharrell2747]

Call it Einstein Energy? He discovered the equivalence of matter and energy that’s at the heart of any nuclear reaction.

[@howardbonds5106]

Nuclear waste and atomic bombs...to this day we have no permanent solution to the radioactive waste that keeps oozing out everywhere...not that hard to see.

[@fl00fydragon]

Funny thing about train safety Maglev isdsd not only the fastest type of train but it's also the safest because the train HUGS the tracks making a derailment virtually impossible. But we have a capitalism problem... as always.

[@octobrain23232]

The types of nuclear power plants that exist use a method of fission that was developed in 1945. There has almost been no development of new methods of fission in 70 years, it has been suppressed in general by the oil cartel and ignorant environmentalists that are inadvertently serving Big Oil by being anti-nuclear. Look into LFTR/MSR technology that uses drastically more efficient means of fission. China has built a LFTR prototype, that if it works, can be revolutionary in terms of energy production.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

I'm the opposite of a luddite. My problem with fission plants is the spent fuel and irradiated structures. We still have no real plan to deal with any of it

[@ForbiddTV]

We have always had multiple good ways of dealing with spent fuel.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

@@ForbiddTV yeah, no. Leaving spent fuel in ponds on site is not "good".

[@ForbiddTV]

@@user-gk9lg5sp4y Sure it is until the politicians get off their butts. No one in world history has ever been harmed by stored fuel rods. Instead of burial we should be using them as fuel in fast breeder reactors or reprocessing them.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

@@ForbiddTV Not a solution

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

@Christopher Grant so what's the plan then? Bury it in a mine? Not a solution

[@Xaphnir]

The problem I have with nuclear power is both cost and construction time. Nuclear power is by far the most expensive form of power per kWh. And from the start of planning to operational nuclear power planets take over a decade to construct, with many taking two decades. Given that we need drastic reductions by 2030, no nuclear plant that starts its planning today will be done in time. Focusing the resources that would be spent on nuclear power on renewables instead would be a much more efficient use of resources and be more effective at combating climate change. There's also the fact that most of the people I see pushing nuclear power seem to be Elon-tier grifters, pushing technology that either does not work or won't be developed for another two decades at least.

[@Xaphnir]

@Christopher Grant What are those citations? Everything I've seen shows nuclear power is significantly more expensive. I've never even seen it suggested by a source that's remotely credible that it's cheaper. And anyway, my bigger concern is the time it takes to build them. As a solution to climate change, it's time we do not have

[@ForbiddTV]

Many countries have been building and using small modular nuclear reactors for many decades, built in two years or less, for millions not billions. Nuclear is cheaper than renewables with storage.

[@Xaphnir]

@@ForbiddTV No they haven't. There's about as much truth behind what you just claimed as there is behind Trump's 2020 election claims.

[@ForbiddTV]

@@Xaphnir Being ignorant is not impressive. There are literally hundreds of nuclear powered ships and boats that have been built. You could have looked that up before making a fool of yourself on the internet.

[@Xaphnir]

@@ForbiddTV A nuclear reactor on a submarine or aircraft carrier is not a small modular reactor. Small modular reactors are still in the prototype stage, with most proposed projects not planned to come online until after 2030, and it's doubtful whether they'll actually deliver on their promises.

[@ParadeofCrows]

There are some serious problems with Nuclear energy but at the very least its not as immediately and world ending level destructive as fossil fuels.

[@danielshepard2315]

My problem is that the most serious problem with nuclear is that it's too expensive, carbon intensive, and slow to build to reduce emissions quickly in the first place.

[@crappozappo]

People say "it's better than fossil fuels" but like, renewables are better than both nuclear and fossil fuels..it's a moot point

[@ParadeofCrows]

@@crappozappo I agree, thats why i said "at least" its not my preferred option but its a step up in the short term at least. If it were up to me I'd go all renewable, but I think at this point arguing with people who for some reason feel strongly about Nuclear energy is kind of pointless when we're standing at the edge of a cliff with fossil fuels.

[@jasonreid2851]

If their is a rational argument in support of nuclear (there is) in conjunction with green renewables then fine. Myself and others are happy to have our fears assuaged. But the horrors of chenobyl and the damage that nuclear can do rest heavy on some. Then you have putin messing with a reactor and it sets my heart fluttering. The potential damage isn’t even localised it affects neighbouring countries. There is no need to be condescending I think. In any case what do we do with all the build up of nuclear waste longterm. Lastly, reactors take decades to go online. I would think our main concern would be renewables especially for the short and mid term crisis we are facing

[@noneofyourbusiness3288]

I dont hate nuclear, I hate the people who think nuclear is anything other than an outdated transitionary technology. There simply is not enough Uranium to make large-scale Nuclear feasible (around 90-300 TW-years in Uranium reserves with a current energy consumption of 16 TW, gives you around 5-15 years of fuel should you go 100% nuclear, not great). Sure: let the plants that are currently running run until the transition to green energy is done. But dont use nuclear as an excuse to not build solar panels and infrastructure to support the hour to hour, day to day fluctuations of renewable energy. It WILL have to be done soon anyway, better get to it.

[@rodanone4895]

not true. engineers are trained in ethics if the university is accredited. we used the pinto as the example when i was in school as an engineer. we were encouraged to blow the whistle. engineers have a mandate to improve the world for all. just some aren't into doing right. just like other professions.