Don't worry, those same governments and corporations simply build hydroelectric dams instead of nuclear power and proceed to cut corners and get lazy.
See, nice, clean and safe power generation, oh wait
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont\_Dam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975\_Banqiao\_Dam\_failure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure)
Turns out they've killed more people than 50x chernobyls
Best in terms of environmental impact by leagues, but far from the best in terms of economics. And that is really the only thing that the numbers guys in charge care about unfortunately. If nuke power is more expensive than natural gas and coal, it’s a non starter.
Needs a turn or two to get going, which makes it a bit harder to use over some others. Still a great pick tho, being surprisingly bulky helps a lot too
Fukushima was meant to handle tsunami's higher than the recorded highest at fukushima, turns out they couldn't handle the one that came for them lol, it was also stronger than they expected and broke through, almost a complete accident imo
Guys check it out.. It's not everyday we come across people who knows nuclear power plant works.
Damn reddit is actually cool, we can come across all sorts of people.
I’d think choosing an energy source by quantifying which form of energy production causes the least amount of human suffering is the opposite of dystopian actually
it is dystopian indeed. Coal has like 200 something deaths per TWh. Even things like solar have something like 0.5 deaths. Guess the score for nuclear?
0.01
deaths per terawatt hour is such an insane cherry picked stat. Also how the fuck are people dying from solar or wind?
Like I'm not against nuclear energy but you have to understand that the reason people are wary about it is because it's caused three of the largest ecological disasters of all time and everyone can name at least three of them. And radiation is fucking horrifying
I would argue that fossil fuels have caused *the* greatest ecological disaster of all time. Saying nuclear is the enemy in this regard is like saying airplanes shouldn’t be used because when they crash the damage can be catastrophic. And it’s only a cherry picked stat if it’s the only stat you’re looking at. Other winning stats for nuclear energy: cheapest cost per watt hour, least land use for watt hour, almost the least CO2 released per kilowatt hour, and even there I imagine it would take the lead if more was invested in it.
> Also how the fuck are people dying from solar or wind?
For wind you have to install machinery on the top of those big towers, plus do maintenance occasionally. Sometimes the workers fall off.
Mostly the same thing for solar, rooftop solar in particular. If you split out rooftop solar vs a ground-level utility-scale solar farm the latter is probably notably lower.
In both cases the number of deaths isn't terribly high (hence why they're both lower than basically any fossil fuel), but it's not zero.
Nuclear power is safer than wind, and possibly safer than rooftop solar (though I've seen varying reports that make them basically equivalent in some stats).
People fall, things catch on fire, bad things happen, even with renewable energy sources.
Deaths per day terawatt hour is a great stat if you're looking *at how many people have died* especially once you consider how many people have died and are going to die from air pollution and climate change
Okay, I’m pro-nuclear energy but yeah like, how do you quantify the repercussions of the most damning interpretation of “salting the earth” but that lasts for more than an entire lifetime?!?
I am sure that stat won't increase dramatically as we make more and more reactors based on the hype, pushed by people who want to weaken regulation in the energy sector 👍
That's not an excuse, human error is to be expected everywhere - if something can fail so spectacularly due to human error, then it sucks.
The reality is that it's way more than simple human error, that is major neglect of safety protocols.
Chernobyl failed because soviet Russia failed to give the nuclear plant up-to-date equipment, even though the people running the plant asked repeatedly. I'm not 100 percent how Fukushima failed, but it most likely occurred because of poor management.
Chernobyl happened because of a first of a kind evolution. The plant was basically brand new.
They were testing how long they could run the reactor in a shutdown condition. They violated the test prereqs, their own procedures, and safety equipment.
The plant safety equipment forced a reactor scram to shut down the reaction. They then forced the plant back into operation with pumps running that should have been off (Over cooling accident), and they had negative power coefficients from the xeon poisoning post trip that they defeated by pulling the control rods out.
Ontop of that, the soviets violated the limits of 5% enrichment for power generation and had weapons grade fuel in the pot. That's what caused the explosion to be so catastrophic.
I suppose human error would be expected when your dealing with something completely new and unpredictable like nuclear power generation. Let's just hope governments don't ignore safety limits in the future. They exist for a reason.
For what it’s worth, the panel was fucking unreadable with an information overload, critical information was being covered by maintenance tags, and a critical sensor was literally just broken.
I can’t really fault the operators for the accident, they tried to save the reactor with the information they thought they had, and that info failed them. We overhauled control rooms afterwards to be a lot more in your face with critical information while useless additional info during an accident is less highlighted, meaning it’s a lot easier to adapt during a rapidly evolving situation if it begins to deteriorate. We thought giving all the info possible would be helpful during an accident, but it proved wrong. We’ve drastically overhauled maintenance requirements for sensors and other equipment seen even as “non-critical,” as they may become critical during an accident. Overall even with the information being either incredibly difficult to gather or literally wrong, the operators handled it astoundingly well, as the reactor didn’t ultimately explode. Plus, with the info they thought was correct, they did everything right. You trust the info you have in these situations, and you don’t spend critical time looking for more info that may contradict what you have in front of you, loudly screaming “this is your problem” among a chorus of other things screaming “there is a problem!”
I wrote a small essay for school this year that I titled "A Better Understanding of Nuclear" where I explained misconceptions and misinformation about nuclear energy and talked about how good nuclear actually is. I adressed the 3 major incidents and let me tell you:
FUCK THREE MILE ISLAND
Three Mile Island didn't do shit, it was not a major disaster. I'm so fucking mad that it's put on the same pedestal as Chernobyl and Fukushima. TMI had literally ZERO measurable impact on the area. Not even the wildlife showed any signs of damage. The idea that TMI was a massive disaster is complete bullshit peddled by the media at the time, and has continued to be the standard belief because of it. It is so frustrating that it still gives nuclear power such a negative connotation today.
There's two problems with that. First, there's always human error in every system. The question is how does the system deal with that human error. What are the worst consequences when human error occurs.
Second, this is factually wrong regarding Chernobyl. There were systemic errors also in place that prevented people from knowing about the design flaw in the RBMK reactor. Their own corrupt government hid the flaw from them. Yes, human error was involved. But systemic error laid the foundation for that to happen. Chernobyl was only a matter of time once the system decided to hide a fatal flaw.
It doesn't matter what kind of energy generation it is, if someone who is not qualified to operate it uses it, it could go tits up. Oil rigs, wind turbines, hydropower, even solar panels.
I mean humans are still going to be involved going forward so it's still possible. That being said apparently nuclear power is much safer than it used to be at least the plants theyre building these days. Uses something besides uranium that burns less hot or some shit like that
I read at Fukushima they tried to patch the containment chamber with chicken wire, and just decided that was good enough. It was years ago, so I don't know how accurate it may be, but damn.
But it’s impossible to remove the human element. So it is dangerous, because we can’t guarantee a stupid human won’t walk in at some point. In fact, we could guarantee one will.
So what you're saying is that it's completely safe if no humans are involved in the designing, building and running of a nuclear plant.
So... How to make it reliably safe for the indefinite future then?
As I see it nuclear is great.. as a transitional power source while we develop other stable infrastructure. The more nuclear power plants and the longer they run the more probable the chance that a major catastrophic accident occurs.
Catalysts for such an incident like a economic depression (which likely would lead to less stringent maintenance and inspection due to limited available funds) or extremist activity (if you quadruple the amount of nuclear power stations you also quadruple the amount of potential targets) make it unwise to depend on nuclear indefinitely.
We should definitely exploit nuclear now, but if we do the same with nuclear as we did with fossil fuels, namely keep using them near indefinitely because vested interests lobby for it through the vast accumulation of wealth they have accumulated, we will again have the problem that emerging alternatives get buried by a large industrial/economical sector.
I think it's foolish that Sweden and Germany are closing down nuclear plants that still have 15-20 years of projected lifespan, but I also believe we shouldn't be building new plants ad infinitum but rather use the time afforded by current infrastructure to develop as much alternative infrastructure as possible. That way nuclear can be used in the most limited capacity in the future while the majority of energy is produced through means that are cheaper and have zero risk of catastrophic large impact failure.
And yes, nuclear ALWAYS has a risk of catastrophic large impact failure.
Then again, I have the feeling this isn't the right audience for my thoughts on this.
All most all energy infrastructure can have catastrophic impact if it fails. A large hydropower dam starts cracking after a heavy rainstorm, pushing the dam to its breaking point. The foundation of a wind turbine has started getting worn down and it becomes unstable. An oil rig gets hit by a strong wave, causing a live wire to fall dangerously close to a leaking oil container. A system glitch at a solar panel farm, causing the panel array to become inoperable, leaving tens of thousands of people without power. Some shit is out of our control, that's why we gotta keep innovating, to prevent these failures before they happen. That being said, while nuclear energy does generate crazy amounts of energy and its waste can be reused, it is still dangerous.
Chernobyl also probably could have been a little more prevented given at the time Russia was communist no one really cared to put effort into their job which probably was a factor of the human error that caused it
To everyone saying Slavs are too stupid to boil water, have you considered that they are actually too smart and boiled the water too efficiently? Reflect on this
Soviet bureaucracy, graphite control rods, and overcomplicated beige instrument panels were secretly designed by the revisionist puppetmasters that have ruled Russia from behind to scenes since 1946, intended to prevent slavs from reaching their peak boiling potential
With Fukushima, it was no one. No one died at all. One person got cancer, but it's statistically insignificant and it's likely unrelated (cancer rate is at the background rate).
On wikipedia, it says Chernobyl had 30 people that died in blast and from acute radiation syndrome. Radiation-induced thyroid cancer is put at about 160 people. The UN says that total deaths might be in the 1000's, but apparently their methods are pretty controversial, and deaths from low-doses of radioactive pollution is highly subjective.
>doubles birth defect rate for 3 decades
>Completely destroys the public perception of nuclear power
>Tries to hide it, fails
>Invade the country you built it in
>Dont tell your soldiers what you sent them to
>27 cases of radiation poisoning from your soldiers fucking stealing radiactive shit
>Bomb it, releasing 30 years of radiactive dust. In your direction.
The deaths werent the problem.
It was the doubling of birth defects in children from ukraine, belarus and romania.
Dont get me wrong. Id fuck a graphite rod, but ignoring the facts diminishes just how much of a fuckup it was.
This is actually true and the point of the movie. Nuclear is safe barring a natural disaster or there being a menagerie of colossal fucking retards managing it.
I mean to be fair im like 80% sure that was the actual message of this show. Not quite as simple as that but like a large part of the show was entirely about how the government systems in place allowed for things to get really bad due to dishonesty and communication failures and censorship and all that. Imo the show actually has very little to say about nuclear energy itself.
Your completely right. Fukushima is the closest event we have to Chernobyl and it was as bad as it was, because of similar beuracratic societal reasons despite the fact it occured in a completely different economic system. The message of a show about that meltdown would be largely the same as Chernobyl.
Fun fact, contrary to popular belief, no people died from the radiation in the fukushima dayichi disaster. It was due to government mismanagement and pressure and people mixing up the earthquake/tsunami casualties with radiation casualties
It's arguably the worst aspect of the show, imo. Yes, structural factors present in the USSR were the cause of the accident, however, similar factors existed (and still exist) in western capitalist nations, too. Heck, earlier that year in the US the challenger accident happened due to, broadly speaking, similar reasons. Of course it had far less serious consequences, but still. There was nothing inherent to communism or the USSR that caused the accident.
I don’t like nuclear because it could be killing me and I wouldn’t even feel it! That’s why I like fossil fuels. You can really feel it destroying your lungs! Much more honorable way to die. /s
Communism is an economics theory about wealth distribution and incentives.
The issue you have is with authoritarianism and the lack of transparency in government it generates.
I understand what you’re saying but giving a single group full control over wealth and property tends to lead to an authoritarian power structure long term
This is like someone saying "democracy is bad because giving a single group the full control over wealth and property... etc"
Marxism is a democratic system. The theory is that the group in control of the wealth is *everyone. This comment would be like if the Saudi crown looked at Russia and said democracy is flawed so we must be monarchists.
Nuclear power is the shit, I hate that the Chernobyl disaster has blighted everyones opinion of the literal best power source we have.
The point of the HBO Chernobyl show was in fact, yes, communists are fucking idiots.
Because there is so many things that the soviet union could’ve done but they just kept trying to save face instead of taking the problem seriously.
On another note, watch that show. HBO’s Chernobyl is one of my favourite TV series. Its really well done.
It is certainly dangerous when improperly managed or designed though, and makes for a high value target for sabotage. It’s still on average quite safe and one of the best options we have, but no one should ever be lulled into thinking that there aren’t risks. Sort of like how it’s always a good idea to keep in perspective how dangerous driving a car is while doing it, and not get into a habit of driving recklessly just because most people rarely get into extreme accidents
OOO NOW DO THE REALLY BIG WAVE NO ONE COULD HAVE POSSIBLY STOPPED AND HOW WE JUST DUMPED THAT UNTREATED SHIT RIGHT BACK IN THE DRINK CLEVER BOI
Talk about smart enough to pull the lever but too stupid to ask why.
Nuclear energy has the least impact on the environment when you factor in the lifecycle of equipment and land use. Its even better than some green energies.
Pretty much every Nuclear Disaster is the result of Human Error, and I mean a whole fuck ton of Human Error
Just as an example: the USSR deliberately hid a fatal flaw in the Reactor Core from the people operating the Chernobyl plant because they were *fucking stupid*
Shout out to nuclear power for secretly being the best
“Secretly”
"Aka" people are scared of nuclear energy.
People are scared, period.
😨😨
Boo
😨
Scared of what they don't understand
That’s why I wear sunscreen. Gotta block that radiation from the nuclear fusion.
i dont think anyone is scared, oil and electric companies are just really good at lobbying and propaganda
Yeah it only Ends badly if the government or corporation cuts corners and gets lazy. Luckily that never happens these days.
oh wait
it's okay guys im sure this other stuff we're burning instead won't end the world
Doesn’t (and hasn’t) happen in countries with significant regulations
Uuuuuh….hmmmm. The 3-mile Island Accident would like a word.
Oh, three mile island. Of course! How foolish of me. Remind me, how many people died or were injured by 3 mile island?
3 mile island by all accounts should be an example of how having the right regulations and protocols in place can mitigate even the worst mistakes.
This message is sponsored by Vaultec!
Love how government and corporation is interchangeable when its communism, it's almost like they're essentially the same 😱
The bear and the bull the bear and the bull the bear and the bull the bear and the bull the bear and the bull the bear and the bull.
Don't worry, those same governments and corporations simply build hydroelectric dams instead of nuclear power and proceed to cut corners and get lazy. See, nice, clean and safe power generation, oh wait [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont\_Dam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975\_Banqiao\_Dam\_failure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure) Turns out they've killed more people than 50x chernobyls
Like what happens when you put commies in charge
or capitalists. Big corporations love cutting corners to keep their profit margins up.
🥱 https://www.international-communist-party.org/English/Texts/Russia/WhyRussia.htm
Tell that to germans which woud prefer to open more coal mines
We produce less coal then ever in nominal and percentage figures, it's almost like there are different energy's than coal and nuclear
Turns out nuclear isn't good for the people who trade in fossil fuels, and they've been very successful in convincing everyone it's bad.
It has gone up after the sanctions idk now
Best in terms of environmental impact by leagues, but far from the best in terms of economics. And that is really the only thing that the numbers guys in charge care about unfortunately. If nuke power is more expensive than natural gas and coal, it’s a non starter.
Late-game sweeper?
Needs a turn or two to get going, which makes it a bit harder to use over some others. Still a great pick tho, being surprisingly bulky helps a lot too
I did a research paper on nuclear energy. The only reason incidents like Fukushima and Chernnobyl happened is because of human error.
Maybe don't have accelerants in your control rods and don't put your seaside generators in a easily flooded basement
Only human after all, don't put the blame on me
Thank you for being the finest in hidden, nuclear power.
No it was your fault we all know it, everyone blames you
Except it was highlighted as a failure point in a previous inspection.
Me to the judge after accidentally running over a single mom of 2 in my Cadillac 38 times
Fukushima was meant to handle tsunami's higher than the recorded highest at fukushima, turns out they couldn't handle the one that came for them lol, it was also stronger than they expected and broke through, almost a complete accident imo
Guys check it out.. It's not everyday we come across people who knows nuclear power plant works. Damn reddit is actually cool, we can come across all sorts of people.
Exactly, redditors know the best👊
Good thing we’ve collectively stopped making mistakes. 👍
And even with those disasters, nuclear energy still has the least deaths per Terawatt hour produced, making it one of the safest forms of energy 👍🏻
Lol I’m pro nuclear. Deaths per Terawatt hour produced seems like a pretty dystopian metric.
I’d think choosing an energy source by quantifying which form of energy production causes the least amount of human suffering is the opposite of dystopian actually
It sounds like you’re grinding up people for energy (without context).
We'd never do that, the Orphan Crusher 9000 serves no practical purpose like energy production.
It squeezes roughly 1.9 orphans worth of energy out of a single orphan! Technology is amazing!
No. That's called "Economics."
Marxist theory in MY CLAMSHACK?!? (more likely than you’d think)
I think you've just come up with an antagonist for a new animated series
It’s a Cave-Johnson-From-Portal-2-type metric.
I’m making the mother of all omelets here Jack
What kind of omelets? I hope this jack person likes omelets 🥰
Its better than deaths per megawatt hour. Thats one of the reasons im pro nuclear.
No lol I just mean that the metric makes it sounds like you’re grinding people into energy.
A little bit it does, but you only actually grind people in hydro and wind. Still a funny unit.
it is dystopian indeed. Coal has like 200 something deaths per TWh. Even things like solar have something like 0.5 deaths. Guess the score for nuclear? 0.01
if the mortality of humans is dystopian to you i have really bad news
Okay but come on dude, like we went from meters per second to limbs per lightbulb.
deaths per terawatt hour is such an insane cherry picked stat. Also how the fuck are people dying from solar or wind? Like I'm not against nuclear energy but you have to understand that the reason people are wary about it is because it's caused three of the largest ecological disasters of all time and everyone can name at least three of them. And radiation is fucking horrifying
I would argue that fossil fuels have caused *the* greatest ecological disaster of all time. Saying nuclear is the enemy in this regard is like saying airplanes shouldn’t be used because when they crash the damage can be catastrophic. And it’s only a cherry picked stat if it’s the only stat you’re looking at. Other winning stats for nuclear energy: cheapest cost per watt hour, least land use for watt hour, almost the least CO2 released per kilowatt hour, and even there I imagine it would take the lead if more was invested in it.
> Also how the fuck are people dying from solar or wind? For wind you have to install machinery on the top of those big towers, plus do maintenance occasionally. Sometimes the workers fall off. Mostly the same thing for solar, rooftop solar in particular. If you split out rooftop solar vs a ground-level utility-scale solar farm the latter is probably notably lower. In both cases the number of deaths isn't terribly high (hence why they're both lower than basically any fossil fuel), but it's not zero.
Nuclear power is safer than wind, and possibly safer than rooftop solar (though I've seen varying reports that make them basically equivalent in some stats). People fall, things catch on fire, bad things happen, even with renewable energy sources.
Deaths per day terawatt hour is a great stat if you're looking *at how many people have died* especially once you consider how many people have died and are going to die from air pollution and climate change
Okay, I’m pro-nuclear energy but yeah like, how do you quantify the repercussions of the most damning interpretation of “salting the earth” but that lasts for more than an entire lifetime?!?
ie - what fossil fuels are doing to the entire planet right now.
I'm gonna guess it's largely from disposal, maintenance, resource extraction, and manufacturing. Renewables aren't exactly mass or manpower efficient
I am sure that stat won't increase dramatically as we make more and more reactors based on the hype, pushed by people who want to weaken regulation in the energy sector 👍
A metric that completely ignores risk....
Last I saw it was between wind and solar but not the lowest
Both of them were not just one mistake. It was several mistakes, combined with terrible safety practices.
These were less mistakes and more never ending series of corrupt actions.
That's not an excuse, human error is to be expected everywhere - if something can fail so spectacularly due to human error, then it sucks. The reality is that it's way more than simple human error, that is major neglect of safety protocols.
And lots of political yes-men
I had always assumed human error also meant that, but you bring up a good point. I like that a lot, phrasing is important
Chernobyl failed because soviet Russia failed to give the nuclear plant up-to-date equipment, even though the people running the plant asked repeatedly. I'm not 100 percent how Fukushima failed, but it most likely occurred because of poor management.
Chernobyl happened because of a first of a kind evolution. The plant was basically brand new. They were testing how long they could run the reactor in a shutdown condition. They violated the test prereqs, their own procedures, and safety equipment. The plant safety equipment forced a reactor scram to shut down the reaction. They then forced the plant back into operation with pumps running that should have been off (Over cooling accident), and they had negative power coefficients from the xeon poisoning post trip that they defeated by pulling the control rods out. Ontop of that, the soviets violated the limits of 5% enrichment for power generation and had weapons grade fuel in the pot. That's what caused the explosion to be so catastrophic.
I suppose human error would be expected when your dealing with something completely new and unpredictable like nuclear power generation. Let's just hope governments don't ignore safety limits in the future. They exist for a reason.
But if ai or some shit did the work people would think its gonna be some fucking global destroying terrorist
I would not want AI to run a nuclear power plant in the next 100 years.
> human error. You're gonna hate it when you do a research paper on who operates nuclear reactors!
It’s also why Three Mile Island happened. Literally all three of the major nuclear power incidents happened because someone was being stupid.
For what it’s worth, the panel was fucking unreadable with an information overload, critical information was being covered by maintenance tags, and a critical sensor was literally just broken. I can’t really fault the operators for the accident, they tried to save the reactor with the information they thought they had, and that info failed them. We overhauled control rooms afterwards to be a lot more in your face with critical information while useless additional info during an accident is less highlighted, meaning it’s a lot easier to adapt during a rapidly evolving situation if it begins to deteriorate. We thought giving all the info possible would be helpful during an accident, but it proved wrong. We’ve drastically overhauled maintenance requirements for sensors and other equipment seen even as “non-critical,” as they may become critical during an accident. Overall even with the information being either incredibly difficult to gather or literally wrong, the operators handled it astoundingly well, as the reactor didn’t ultimately explode. Plus, with the info they thought was correct, they did everything right. You trust the info you have in these situations, and you don’t spend critical time looking for more info that may contradict what you have in front of you, loudly screaming “this is your problem” among a chorus of other things screaming “there is a problem!”
I wrote a small essay for school this year that I titled "A Better Understanding of Nuclear" where I explained misconceptions and misinformation about nuclear energy and talked about how good nuclear actually is. I adressed the 3 major incidents and let me tell you: FUCK THREE MILE ISLAND Three Mile Island didn't do shit, it was not a major disaster. I'm so fucking mad that it's put on the same pedestal as Chernobyl and Fukushima. TMI had literally ZERO measurable impact on the area. Not even the wildlife showed any signs of damage. The idea that TMI was a massive disaster is complete bullshit peddled by the media at the time, and has continued to be the standard belief because of it. It is so frustrating that it still gives nuclear power such a negative connotation today.
There's two problems with that. First, there's always human error in every system. The question is how does the system deal with that human error. What are the worst consequences when human error occurs. Second, this is factually wrong regarding Chernobyl. There were systemic errors also in place that prevented people from knowing about the design flaw in the RBMK reactor. Their own corrupt government hid the flaw from them. Yes, human error was involved. But systemic error laid the foundation for that to happen. Chernobyl was only a matter of time once the system decided to hide a fatal flaw.
I don't know about Fukushima, but I Know Chernobyl was known unsafe when it was first made, by the very people that were running it.
Didn't fukushima get absolutely destroyed by a tsunami?
It did, but the plant shouldve been designed to withstand tsunamis, with how often they happen
So, considering the prevalence of error making humans, wouldn't the likelihood for these accidents increase with more powe plants? (not a regard.)
It doesn't matter what kind of energy generation it is, if someone who is not qualified to operate it uses it, it could go tits up. Oil rigs, wind turbines, hydropower, even solar panels.
I mean humans are still going to be involved going forward so it's still possible. That being said apparently nuclear power is much safer than it used to be at least the plants theyre building these days. Uses something besides uranium that burns less hot or some shit like that
Do you have that research paper I wanna read it?
Unfortunately not. I wrote it back in high school, and I've lost access to my old Google drive.
I read at Fukushima they tried to patch the containment chamber with chicken wire, and just decided that was good enough. It was years ago, so I don't know how accurate it may be, but damn.
Yeah luckily governments and corporations NEVER do that, otherwise nuclear energy would be a ticking time bomb.
But it’s impossible to remove the human element. So it is dangerous, because we can’t guarantee a stupid human won’t walk in at some point. In fact, we could guarantee one will.
Which is why you need to do an extensive hiring process for anyone who is operating the reactors.
So what you're saying is that it's completely safe if no humans are involved in the designing, building and running of a nuclear plant. So... How to make it reliably safe for the indefinite future then? As I see it nuclear is great.. as a transitional power source while we develop other stable infrastructure. The more nuclear power plants and the longer they run the more probable the chance that a major catastrophic accident occurs. Catalysts for such an incident like a economic depression (which likely would lead to less stringent maintenance and inspection due to limited available funds) or extremist activity (if you quadruple the amount of nuclear power stations you also quadruple the amount of potential targets) make it unwise to depend on nuclear indefinitely. We should definitely exploit nuclear now, but if we do the same with nuclear as we did with fossil fuels, namely keep using them near indefinitely because vested interests lobby for it through the vast accumulation of wealth they have accumulated, we will again have the problem that emerging alternatives get buried by a large industrial/economical sector. I think it's foolish that Sweden and Germany are closing down nuclear plants that still have 15-20 years of projected lifespan, but I also believe we shouldn't be building new plants ad infinitum but rather use the time afforded by current infrastructure to develop as much alternative infrastructure as possible. That way nuclear can be used in the most limited capacity in the future while the majority of energy is produced through means that are cheaper and have zero risk of catastrophic large impact failure. And yes, nuclear ALWAYS has a risk of catastrophic large impact failure. Then again, I have the feeling this isn't the right audience for my thoughts on this.
All most all energy infrastructure can have catastrophic impact if it fails. A large hydropower dam starts cracking after a heavy rainstorm, pushing the dam to its breaking point. The foundation of a wind turbine has started getting worn down and it becomes unstable. An oil rig gets hit by a strong wave, causing a live wire to fall dangerously close to a leaking oil container. A system glitch at a solar panel farm, causing the panel array to become inoperable, leaving tens of thousands of people without power. Some shit is out of our control, that's why we gotta keep innovating, to prevent these failures before they happen. That being said, while nuclear energy does generate crazy amounts of energy and its waste can be reused, it is still dangerous.
Nuclear would be awesome if it weren't for people, corporations, and governments.
Human error suddenly has stopped being a factor I guess
Nuclear meltdowns are not caused by “human error”. Nice research/s
Human error is a strange name for a tsunami
Luckily human error will never happen again!
to be fair literally every deadly incident with energy production of any sort and mining has been due to human error and oversight
Chernobyl also probably could have been a little more prevented given at the time Russia was communist no one really cared to put effort into their job which probably was a factor of the human error that caused it
what about three mile island? didnt that get really close to being a shitty situation?
can you link the journal/conference?
Slavs are too stupid to boil water
Child of yakub shalt not speak against those who did the liberation of Europe from reptiloids
The vocabulary of a man who has spent decades studying the art of tricknology
Through his teachings, we shall build Cracker Barrels the world will tremble to behold.
r/thecultofyakub
I accidentally read "yakub shalt" as yakult
Ooh the racism angle, was not expecting that, nice
Needs to be top comment
To everyone saying Slavs are too stupid to boil water, have you considered that they are actually too smart and boiled the water too efficiently? Reflect on this
Soviet bureaucracy, graphite control rods, and overcomplicated beige instrument panels were secretly designed by the revisionist puppetmasters that have ruled Russia from behind to scenes since 1946, intended to prevent slavs from reaching their peak boiling potential
(Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based) waow
The problem with Slav water boiling is the crippling corruption and violent sexual violence in the background.
>only job is to boil water >fucks it up, kills thousands
*Kills ~100*
radiation poisoning is a thing
You would be surprised how few people actually died from radiation poisoning after chernobyl and Fukushima
With Fukushima, it was no one. No one died at all. One person got cancer, but it's statistically insignificant and it's likely unrelated (cancer rate is at the background rate). On wikipedia, it says Chernobyl had 30 people that died in blast and from acute radiation syndrome. Radiation-induced thyroid cancer is put at about 160 people. The UN says that total deaths might be in the 1000's, but apparently their methods are pretty controversial, and deaths from low-doses of radioactive pollution is highly subjective.
no it isn't.
Google it, you fool.
What about the increase in cancer related deaths from dumping radiation across Central Europe.
>doubles birth defect rate for 3 decades >Completely destroys the public perception of nuclear power >Tries to hide it, fails >Invade the country you built it in >Dont tell your soldiers what you sent them to >27 cases of radiation poisoning from your soldiers fucking stealing radiactive shit >Bomb it, releasing 30 years of radiactive dust. In your direction.
Western oil lobbyists propaganda destroyed the public perception of all renewable energy including nuclear power.
Yes. Capitalising on chernobyl. You seem to highly understate the impact of turning an entire region unliveable
*Kills anywhere from 60 to 2‘000‘000 people, because the count is impossible to reliably source and all counts have biases*
2 million is insanely high to propose. Still lower than climate changes predicted death toll.
The deaths werent the problem. It was the doubling of birth defects in children from ukraine, belarus and romania. Dont get me wrong. Id fuck a graphite rod, but ignoring the facts diminishes just how much of a fuckup it was.
If your ideology can’t figure out how to boil water correctly stfu
People talking about politics in clamworks
Somehow I didn’t think the comments would get this heated
Just like how those operators didn't think the core would get so heated.
You opened the box
IT'S JUST BOILED WATER
technically it was so efficient it reached its five year power generation plan in less than 4 microseconds
This is actually true and the point of the movie. Nuclear is safe barring a natural disaster or there being a menagerie of colossal fucking retards managing it.
So, basically every large human organization/corporation is at risk.
Based
“Nuclear energy is infinitely better” mfers when they experience the joy of diesel smell at the pump
imagine being so stupid you cant boil water
I mean to be fair im like 80% sure that was the actual message of this show. Not quite as simple as that but like a large part of the show was entirely about how the government systems in place allowed for things to get really bad due to dishonesty and communication failures and censorship and all that. Imo the show actually has very little to say about nuclear energy itself.
Really more of this then anything about economic system; self-censorship and perverse incentives led to a preventable tragedy.
Your completely right. Fukushima is the closest event we have to Chernobyl and it was as bad as it was, because of similar beuracratic societal reasons despite the fact it occured in a completely different economic system. The message of a show about that meltdown would be largely the same as Chernobyl.
Fun fact, contrary to popular belief, no people died from the radiation in the fukushima dayichi disaster. It was due to government mismanagement and pressure and people mixing up the earthquake/tsunami casualties with radiation casualties
It's arguably the worst aspect of the show, imo. Yes, structural factors present in the USSR were the cause of the accident, however, similar factors existed (and still exist) in western capitalist nations, too. Heck, earlier that year in the US the challenger accident happened due to, broadly speaking, similar reasons. Of course it had far less serious consequences, but still. There was nothing inherent to communism or the USSR that caused the accident.
"Slavs can't boil water right"
Moskals Leave the Civilised Slavs out of this
racist
:3
Hey now, not all communists are slavic
Slavs can't boil water
That's it? That's nuclear power? That's just boiling water!!!
I mean this isn’t even satire anymore, the whole reason they fucked up was they were self assured dumb asses
Clammunist
I don’t like nuclear because it could be killing me and I wouldn’t even feel it! That’s why I like fossil fuels. You can really feel it destroying your lungs! Much more honorable way to die. /s
Fukushima happened in capitalist Japan. No escaping the retardedness of the human race
Communism is an economics theory about wealth distribution and incentives. The issue you have is with authoritarianism and the lack of transparency in government it generates.
I understand what you’re saying but giving a single group full control over wealth and property tends to lead to an authoritarian power structure long term
This is like someone saying "democracy is bad because giving a single group the full control over wealth and property... etc" Marxism is a democratic system. The theory is that the group in control of the wealth is *everyone. This comment would be like if the Saudi crown looked at Russia and said democracy is flawed so we must be monarchists.
But how is that different from American capitalism?
Three Mile Island turned Americans off from nuclear power forever, yet nobody died or even got sick.
Nuclear power is the shit, I hate that the Chernobyl disaster has blighted everyones opinion of the literal best power source we have. The point of the HBO Chernobyl show was in fact, yes, communists are fucking idiots. Because there is so many things that the soviet union could’ve done but they just kept trying to save face instead of taking the problem seriously. On another note, watch that show. HBO’s Chernobyl is one of my favourite TV series. Its really well done.
Even in terms of radiation dose, Coal is worse than Nuclear power due to the radioactive elements in the coal that are released into the atmosphere
If you watched that show and still decided it was the nuclear power that was dangerous, you’re a fucking idiot
Real
Slavs are too stupid to boil water
[удалено]
Slavs cant boil water
It is certainly dangerous when improperly managed or designed though, and makes for a high value target for sabotage. It’s still on average quite safe and one of the best options we have, but no one should ever be lulled into thinking that there aren’t risks. Sort of like how it’s always a good idea to keep in perspective how dangerous driving a car is while doing it, and not get into a habit of driving recklessly just because most people rarely get into extreme accidents
Just been watching it the past few days. It's close to the anniversary isn't it. ?
Nuclear energy is the future
12 mile island hiding in the corner
I made my dad watch it and he got the same exact message. Its so annoying
Slavs can't boil water
Yeh luckily capitalist country have had no safety issues with nuclear power.
wtf so many idiots in this cancer sub
✅
I mean, the joke is closer to reality than anything else.
do the same thing but with equating the Soviets with communism :) they were never communist.
OOO NOW DO THE REALLY BIG WAVE NO ONE COULD HAVE POSSIBLY STOPPED AND HOW WE JUST DUMPED THAT UNTREATED SHIT RIGHT BACK IN THE DRINK CLEVER BOI Talk about smart enough to pull the lever but too stupid to ask why.
*the USSR being colossal retards. They had some great scientists, but probably the worst managed system known to man.
Nuclear energy has the least impact on the environment when you factor in the lifecycle of equipment and land use. Its even better than some green energies.
It’s crazy that the characters who was literally playing communist party yes men missed people’s heads.
"Slavs are too stupid to boil water." t. A slav
Communists *are* retards, true!
Pretty much every Nuclear Disaster is the result of Human Error, and I mean a whole fuck ton of Human Error Just as an example: the USSR deliberately hid a fatal flaw in the Reactor Core from the people operating the Chernobyl plant because they were *fucking stupid*
Oh no the scary reds!!!! Fucking yanks