Three Mile Island was the worst nuclear accident in US history. Was mainly caused by poor design of human feedback systems which caused operational confusion and lead to a catastrophic failure.

  • SeattleRain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 hours ago

    This plant, had it exploded in the 1970’s, would have made New York and Washington DC uninhabitable.

    • LordGimp@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Seeing as a PWR isn’t really capable of exploding in the way you’re describing, horseshit. At worst, it can flash boil a bunch of water and melt. Besides that, the containment building alone is miles better than anything the USSR ever commissioned. All you need to do to have a safe reactor is to take the goddamn people out of it.

      • SeattleRain@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        No it’s true. During clean up they were about to use a crane inside the reactor to lift a steel lid that had not been inspected that was damaged during the meltdown. The FBI stopped them at the last minute. Had the core touched the water during a meltdown it would have spread a radioactive cloud over DC and New York with enough Fallout to force them to be abandoned like Chernobyl

        • LordGimp@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          I see you’ve watched a single special on Netflix and consider yourself an expert on the matter. Good for you.

          As a welder who has actually fabricated parts for nuclear reactors, you don’t know shit about ass. The core always touches water, that’s how a PWR works. Any void whatsoever in the core would displace the water that acts as a moderator and instantly shut down any chain reaction.

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The development of ACP_196 did use AI for huge portions of the raw sequencing and simulation, for what thats worth…

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 day ago

        for what that is worth

        A lot if you ask me. Unfortunately this will mostly be LLMs and image generators using this power probably.

    • Usernameblankface@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      If/when the ai hype train crashes, it would already be online and therefore a good argument can be made to redirect the power to the grid instead of the then-defunct project

    • tee9000@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Maybe true. But if we have increased energy demand it might as well be nuclear.

      Halting ai development might be nice according to many people, but we cant make that happen. Fraud alone is magnitudes more rampant. Its here to stay and we have to deal with it. I think this is a big win.

        • tee9000@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 day ago

          This is a pretty fucking stupid comment lmao

          What the hell are you talking about?

          • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Probably they mean the way “AI” is presented to the public / investors. Most things that claim to be “AI” aren’t, they’re just regular boring ol’ software, and even those things that do use AI are usually just using them for one tiny facet that doesn’t actually require them.

            There’s potential for some incredible advances in AI right now, but outside of some novelty examples we really haven’t figured out what it’s actually useful for quite yet. It’s one of the more interesting questions in the field.

            • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 day ago

              Agreed, but the point of the original reply is that AI, like fraud, is magnitudes more rampant and here to stay. For now.

              • tee9000@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                And that fraud is specifically rampant because of ai… so if companies arent using ai to combat it then they would never be able to keep up.

            • pimento64@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              If the general bulk of appreciable-quantity tech investors suddenly found out in granular detail what is actually being done with their money as opposed to what they were told, it would probably cause the biggest crash since the Great Depression.

  • NateNate60@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

    If you hate nuclear energy because you think it’s dangerous or polluting, that is as dumb as choosing to drive instead of taking the train for the same reasons.

    Nuclear energy is one of the methods of generating electricity with the smallest environmental impact and also much, much safer than the alternatives. The number of nuclear accidents can be counted on one hand, while the number of people who have died from cancer from coal power plants is conservatively estimated to be in the millions.

    • Ibuthyr@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I mean, comparing that to coal isn’t a very impressive feat. Nuclear power is very expensive, fission material is limited and sourced from dodgy countries, storage is difficult etc. The emissions are the only good thing about it. There are good alternatives to that. I guess using the existing ones until they need to be decommissioned is still a good idea though.

    • datendefekt@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Nuclear has its advantages, but there is hardly anything as cheap and maintenance free as solar+batteries. Anyone can set it up, and it just runs all by itself for years and years.

      In Europe, the price for electricity on the spot market regularly goes in the negative. Jep, you can get paid money to consume electricity because it’s so abundant.

      Look at France, their new NPP is taking 12 years and 12 billion euros more than planned. Is it really worth all that financial and environmental risk building something poisonous and explodey that needs constant attention?

      • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Batteries scale horribly and are extremely toxic themselves.

        SOME parts of Europe are cheap some are expensive and are subject to bad price spikes.

        The reality is we need everything. More solar/wind is great! But we also need secure stable baseline generation that works. Nothing comes close to nuclear.

      • Eximius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago
        1. Not poisonous.
        2. Not explodey. Chernobyl destroyed all common sense and support for nuclear power, even though it was mostly terrible terrible management and horrible corrupt (Soviet) government that caused it. Nuclear reactors can’t explode like Chernobyl unless someone purposely flips all the switches to red, does manual overrides aand it was specifically built to ignore all logical safety concerns.

        The number of kille people by coal is orders of magnitude higher over the same period (lets say 60 years) per GW generated.

        Any other arguments?

        • datendefekt@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Uranium is a heavy metal and of course its poisonous. Just like lead, but radioactive. Why aren’t we using uranium glassware or uranium paint anymore if it’s supposedly not poisonous?

          When was the last time a solar farm or a wind park had a catastrophic accident leading to large parts of land being uninhabitable for decades, even centuries?

          Of course they are explodey. It’s a fission reaction that has to be constantly modulated and cooled to not go critical.

          The other argument is the cost of properly storing waste and decommissioning the plant, which is often conviently ignored. Not much of a NPP can be recycled, unlike solar.

          • Eximius@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Wait, so you think nuclear reactors spew out uranium?

            While coal powerplants don’t spew out radioactive coal ash??

            Lets just say only one of these is true… and it is not the former.

            They are not explodey, because they are by design not. The non RBMK (i.e. not cheap Russian, lied-about-safety-by-government) reactors are designed to literally cool off without any power or control, if all went to shit. You can try with all your expertise to make it explode, and short of rebuilding it you will fail. Even if you were to add explosives. At that point, just making your own nuclear bomb is cheaper and faster.

            I think it is quite optimistic to think they will even recycle 5% of a solar powerplant. The silicon is not useful, hard to dismantle from metal. Additives make it unusable without special centrifuge processes. Take the easy metals, scrap the rest, use easy, cheap raw materials for controlled process. Most of the NPP can be recycled if you cared, apart from the irradiated reactor, which is a very tiny part of it. It’s all wires, steel and other useful electric constructions. Nobody cares to recycle concrete.

            I wont talk about storing waste, because I dont know why it is marketed as prohibitively expensive. Apart from it just being lead lined barrels in say an empty mineshaft (which there are an exceptional volume of everywhere). Literally enough space for forever, no need to put anything in the air.

            • datendefekt@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Wait, so you think nuclear reactors spew out uranium?

              Didn’t say that. But I also don’t think that it magically appears in the plant.

              While coal powerplants don’t spew out radioactive coal ash??

              Please stop this whataboutism.

              Nobody cares to recycle concrete.

              Not true. Making concrete creates huge amounts of CO2 during production. Sand is becoming a valuable resource. Recycling concrete for aggregate absolutely is a thing, but that’s a different topic.

              I wont talk about storing waste, because I dont know why it is marketed as prohibitively expensive.

              Convenient. Then I will because I’m not finished. You have to ensure containment of the barrels for decades, if not centuries. The mine has to be in geologically inactive area, and you have to be certain that no ground water will seep into the mine in the foreseeable future. We don’t want ground water in the mine, its cold and wet and seeps through everywhere.

              And you have to figure out how to keep idiots from breaking into the mine in 150 years and using spent rods to heat their homes. If you think that’s far fetched I encourage you to read about the Goiânia accident , one of the world’s worst nuclear disasters. Some kids found the radioactive source of an abandoned xray machine while playing around.

          • medgremlin@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 hours ago

            There is talk about lifting the restrictions on fuel recycling, so that problem (which isn’t as big an issue as folks make it out to be) has the potential to be solved.

      • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        datacenter are perfect for nuclear as they are generally a fixed load that never changes, solar needs expensive batteries as does wind, there are functionaly no* renewable options for covering extended periods on no wind or sun. datacenters bring in money partially because of their reliability, normal ones have huge generators to accomplish this, nuclear is much greener.

        • ignoring hydro due to regulations and tidal as it isn’t ready yet
    • andyburke@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      32
      ·
      1 day ago

      We are installing gobs of distributed, cheap, safe solar and batteries to smooth load and nuclear proponents will still be running around advocating for expensive centralized nuclear reactors that generate either long-lasting radioactive waste or nuclear bombs.

      🤷‍♂️

        • Revan343@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          Some nuclear reactor designs can be used for breeding plutonium, as well as for producing power. It was a bigger issue in the past, though; nowadays there are plenty of well tested designs that aren’t capable of breeding plutonium

      • NateNate60@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        One kilogram of uranium produces more power than one hectare of solar panels does in two years.

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          Then there’s the waste product to consider.

          No, not from nuclear. That’s an issue to be dealt with certainly, but I’m talking about the waste from the production and disposal of solar panels that is ongoing because they don’t last forever.

          • datendefekt@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Solar panels are mostly aluminum and glass and about 90% recyclable. More importantly, they are inert and not radioactive.

            You can’t seriously compare nuclear waste to solar panels.

            • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 hours ago

              Maybe they’re 90% recyclable, but 90% of decommissioned solar panels are not recycled and end up in landfills. The silver lining of nuclear waste storage being limited is we recycle the heck out of it. I guess solar does have a better solution already, though.

            • medgremlin@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              The restrictions on nuclear fuel recycling might be lifted soon, so that argument may very well become moot as well.

        • andyburke@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          Now do the math on the cost of that uranium and the facility you need to turn it into power compared to the cost of the solar.

          If you think cost isn’t the primary factor in all energy production … 🤷‍♂️

          Edit: not to mention all the essentially free developed space we already have in spades to deploy solar to: rooftops.

          • NateNate60@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Utility-scale solar comes out to around US$0.06 per kWh (source). Nuclear power comes out to US$0.07 per kWh (source).

            Commercial-scale solar costs US$0.11 per kWh. Residential rooftop solar comes out to US$0.16 per kWh.

            Edit: This does not take into account the cost of battery capacity or pumped-storage hydroelectric solutions, which are necessary for solar solutions but not nuclear ones. Lithium-ion battery storage costs US$139 per kWh. You’d need at least 500 MWh to accommodation a medium-size city, which would cost US$70 million. If you get 5,000 charge cycles out of the battery, this adds an additional US$0.03 per kWh.

              • andyburke@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                13
                ·
                1 day ago

                All of which ignores lots of real world factors that aren’t being included in the costs the commenter outlines.

                Again, if nuclear were cheaper, you wouldn’t all be here downvoting my comments, you’d be discussing all the great new nuclear being onlined.

                Renewables have won. They’re cheaper and easier to deploy, they’re distributed rather than concentrated, and they have lower impacts on the environment.

                FWIW: I thought thorium reactors might have had some legs in the 00s, but it became clear those didn’t make fiscal sense, either.

                • NateNate60@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  It does not ignore any information.

                  The cost per kWh is the totality of all information. It is the end product. That is the total costs of everything divided by the number of kilowatt-hours of electricity produced.

                  I understand that you’re deeply invested in this argument, but you’ve lost. You’re repeating the same claim over and over, and when proven wrong, you just said “nuh uh” and pretended that nothing I said is true.

                  Nuclear energy can be cheaper than solar or wind. It is more reliable than solar and wind. It uses less land than solar or wind. All of these are known facts. That’s why actual scientists support expanding nuclear energy 2 to 1.

                  But people will still dislike it because they’re scared of building the next Three Mile Island or Fukushima. That, as I explained, is the reason why fewer nuclear plants are being built. Because the scientists, the ones who know the most about these, are not in charge. Instead, it’s the people in the last column that are calling the shots. Do not repeat this drivel of “iF nUcLeaR pOweR PlanTs So Good WhY aRen’T tHerE moRe of ThEM??”. I have explained why. It is widely known why. Your refusal to accept reality does not make it less real.

                  That is the end of the argument. I will not respond to anything else you say, because it is clear to me that no amount of evidence will cause you to change your mind. So go ahead, post your non-chalant reply with laughing emojis and three instances of “lol” or “lmao” and strut over the chessboard like you’ve won.

                  Because I don’t give a pigeon’s shit what you have to say any more.

                • tee9000@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  So many twists and turns here!

                  Its alright i wasnt going to tell anyone i knew the best energy solution after reading lemmy comments. I haven’t voted at all in this thread.

                  Nuclear definitely has a ton of commitment. It takes like 60 years to decommission one right?

      • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        A good chunk of the world is still stuck where the options are coal vs nuclear for base load coverage. Of course people are going to push for the safest option for large load needs.

        We’re generations away from worldwide energy needs being met entirely by green renewables and battery banks. I’ll never be against expansion of those technologies, but nuclear is an important middle step that is far less dangerous than the most widely used technologies for meeting base load (coal).

        Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

        • andyburke@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 day ago

          Why should any underdeveloped nation want to build more expensive nuclear plants that come with tons of issues when they can now install solar, wind and batteries for less?

          • NateNate60@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            The value proposition is absent for developing countries. When you have a lot more money, then nuclear starts to become a serious option.

            You can build nuclear plants in almost any climate. That is not true for solar and wind. Nuclear plants are also “one and done”. You don’t need accompanying battery infrastructure to accompany them to get reliable output. As long as you have water, uranium rods, and nuclear scientists to run the plant, you will have reliable electricity output.

            On top of that, one nuclear plant can produce as much power in two hectares of land as a wind farm could in a hundred hectares.

            • andyburke@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              18
              ·
              1 day ago

              If any of that were actually true, we wouldn’t be net negative on nuclear reactors onlined over the past couple decades.

              Starting to think the nuclear lobby has been pushed by the fossil fuels industry to delay renewables adoption.

              • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                No, in fact. The nuclear lobby has been historically raw dogged by the malding fossil fuel and coal plant industries for decades. Up until recently, traditional power lobbies haven’t seen renewables as legitimate competition due to issues of scaling to meet demand, issues of location restricting where they can be built, etc.

                We’ve had reactor designs ready to use the spent fuel you’re so damn concerned about for years now. Turns it into even less dangerous more spent fuel as more energy is pulled out of it (if you’ll excuse the incredibly simple summation). Incredibly efficient.

                Fully researched. Risks, benefits, construction costs mapped out, maintenance costs mapped out, decomissioning costs mapped out, how long they’d be safe to run mapped out.

                Every single time construction of a new plant comes up, there is a massive fucking push from the older “burn dangerous shit to pollute the air and generate power” industry to drum up fear again until the local community "not in my back yard"s hard enough to stop it.

                Let me make it as explicit as possible: People like you, freaking out about hypotheticals surrounding nuclear power that they have never taken the time to understamd themselves, are a huge part of the reason why greener energy production is so slow to take off.

                If green energy is so ready to take the fuck over and make nuclear obsolete, how in the absolute fuck do you explain what’s going on in Germany right now? Are they just too stupid to do things the right, safe, sustainable way that has no drawbacks at all? Or maybe, just maybe, there are still issues preventing reasonable widespread adoption of renewables, and the smog belchers want us at each other’s throats instead of at theirs?

                Fucking hell. Let me know when you start accusing people of being bots or paid shills so I can just fucking block you already.

              • NateNate60@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                1 day ago

                You seem to think that the politics behind choosing energy sources is based on rational reasoning. It is not. It is fear and emotion that drives the decision to not build nuclear plants. If humans were all rational, there would be more nuclear reactors coming online every year.

                But yes, you are correct, the fossil fuel industry has a hand in this… in fear-mongering nuclear power to discourage its adoption, that is. Because when countries take nuclear power offline, they are usually replaced with fossil fuel plants. This has happened all over Germany, who are replacing decommissioned nuclear plants with new coal plants. And it has happened in my city as well. Portland General Electric decommissioned their Trojan Nuclear Plant, which at one point produced an eighth of all the electricity in Oregon, and its capacity has been replaced with mostly natural gas plants.

              • Rhaedas@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 day ago

                Quite the opposite, starting in the 1970s. We’d have a lot more nuclear power and less red tape had the petroleum industry and politics not put a scare into the public about the nuclear boogeyman. Your comment above about nuclear bombs is precisely the angle they took, using the tension with Russia as a prop for inaccurate science claims.

      • ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        The actual quantity of radioactive waste generated is tiny, and even combining the storage space for waste products with the footprint of the reactor plant itself, nuclear is by far the most energy-dense and space-efficient form of power generation we have.

        • andyburke@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          How long does that waste need to be safely stored and what are the projected costs there? How do they compare to solar that you can deploy today?

          We are not running out of space to put power generation, but we definitely need to worry about costs.

  • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    bro just one more lane power plant bro, bro I swear just one more and it’ll fix the traffic energy demands bro

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    Let’s save money and have AI control the Nuclear Power Plant, see what happens >:]

  • EherNicht@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    How dumb. Solar and Wind are SOO much cheaper per kWh than Nuclear and fossils. With them also comes the benefit of decentralisation. With 1.6B you could install so much more Watts of power with wind turbines and solar parks with the added benefit of less carbon and less nuclear waste and less chance of boom.

    • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I mean, I guess it might be cheaper to start up a nuclear plant again than to build a new solar/wind farm. There’s also someone below who claims that nuclear is actually cheaper.

    • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Not to mention that wind turbines and solar parks are faster to set up AND scalable. A nuclear plant is neither.

    • tee9000@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Interesting. What is the chance a nuclear plant goes boom? Sounds legit.

      • EherNicht@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Very unlikely if maintained properly. The other facts are a lot more important. In addition to the most important one of WAY cheaper price per kWh (of Solar/Wind). And one medium important thing: Nuclear plants often rely on a river for cooling. If said river gets to warm/carries to little water the plant may have to shut down (happened a lot in France recently).

          • nforminvasion@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Extremely. Like to levels you wouldn’t believe. You need more paper work than a printer to be able to enter one. To work at one requires psych evals, tests, multiple background checks, and a whole pile of things.

            There are often loads of armed guards, and surveillance everywhere.

            • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 hours ago

              You’re only talking about security against threats here. I’m swiss and Switzerland is known for doing things extra thoroughly (and extra paperwork), right?

              But then i hear from an ex-firefighter, how Mühleberg once nearly blowed up because the cooling channel was clogged with wood and debris after a record rain. How they had to cool the reactors with hoses and how it was hushed up on media (there are one or two short articles from small papers online).

              Or how Beznau had used lower-quality steel in their pressure tank. How it had it’s runtime prolonged, despite cracks in said tank.

              Not to mention some german or french reactors.

              Now imagine, how thoroughly the old and widespread, yet quite dangerous pressurised water reactors are secured against environmental factors or malfunction in, let’s say, russia? Or egypt?

              The main threats in nuclear reactors are age and human carelessnes.

              • nforminvasion@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 hours ago

                Oh absolutely. The threats are often internal more than external. If the employees are careless or if there are contaminants, there could be consequences. Now not meltdown consequences but costing millions of dollar worth of damages and replacements.

  • sgibson5150@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    1 day ago

    I think it’s fine if Microsoft has their own nuclear power plant as long as every Microsoft corporate officer is required to live downwind of it. ✌🏻

    • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      What?

      Coal plants are the ones that produce radioactive smog. Nuclear plants just put off steam. The radioactive material doesn’t come into contact with the clean water loop that is used to spin the turbine and generate power unless something is catastrophically wrong.

      The dangerous byproduct, spent fuel rods, are stored in pools buried deep, and radioactivity is drastically abetted by the spent rods being submerged in water.

      Seriously, you anti nuclear people are like anti vaxxers. It’s very minimal reading to learn how this shit works so that you can have valid critique, but no, that’s too tough.

      • EherNicht@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        And as you called “anti-nuclear people” “anti-vaxxers” I might add that those small nuclear reactors are such a tech bro bullshit.

      • EherNicht@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        I can just repeat myself while al of your mentioned facts are facts (although I do not know of any storage anywhere which is save for thousands of years). Of course Nuclear is infinitely better than fossils. The most important thing most people do not talk about however is price per kWh. And if you were to read up on that you would see that Nuclear is pretty bad. Just investing the money in renewables (which Nuclear also is not) gives way more value.

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Microsoft already works on nuclear stewardship + the NIF, how much worse could it possibly be?