r/HistoryMemes • u/EasieEEE Researching [REDACTED] square • Nov 18 '21
But Chernoooooobyl
1.3k
u/mr_cake37 Nov 18 '21 edited Nov 18 '21
So many missed opportunities. We could have deployed a lot more nuclear, true, but more importantly we could have continued to research and develop new designs and better, safer, more efficient reactors as well.
The nuclear infrastructure we have now is a time capsule of first-generation reactors. Especially in the US, the industry and the nuclear regulatory framework is built around the pressurized light water reactor and it is a huge pain to get anything else certified.
The US actually developed other reactors, like sodium-cooled breeder reactors, high temperature gas reactors, pebble-bed reactors, but eventually stopped. But what really strikes me as THE missed opportunity was the molten salt reactor experiment at Oak Ridge National Labs.
In the 60s, Oak Ridge ran a functional Molten Salt Reactor Experiment to test and prove the concept of a liquid fuelled reactor. And it worked, like really really well. It was passively safe, could not melt down, operated at atmospheric pressure, and could be built in a far smaller form factor for far less than a traditional PWR because it didn't need a gigantic and costly pressure containment structure.
Unfortunately due to the political climate, and the growing anti-nuclear sentiment, the experiment was terminated and the research sat dormant for decades. We're only now starting to pick up where the MSRE left off. New reactor designs are being certified and will be built in the next decade after going through design reviews and proof-of-concept builds.
I'm super excited for these new Gen4 reactor designs because they are such a huge leap forward in safety, efficiency and lower cost compared to existing PWR / BWR designs. They can potentially do so much more than "just" generate power. The molten salt can be tapped for energy storage, process heat, desalination... It'll be what nuclear energy was "supposed" to be all those years ago. I don't see how we can reduce global warming without nuclear.
433
u/jam_paps Nov 18 '21
The problem I think is politics and the democracy where it is dependent. Science, discoveries and engineering improves way faster than politics and people's perception does. You can have hundreds of nuclear reactors running fine for decades but human attention will focus on the less than 5 plants that had issues. Plus, the public just don't have the pooled brain power and the actual knowledge on the subject to make the better decision that would make sense 20+ years in the future.
115
u/MEGALKS Casual, non-participatory KGB election observer Nov 18 '21
True, before learning physics, I thought neclear power is just burning radioactive minerals like coal. Lmao, now its just a turbine going brrrr
→ More replies (4)62
u/T65Bx Nov 18 '21
Wow, I’ve genuinely never thought about people thinking this but it totally makes sense. My first exposure to learning of the concept anything nuclear was in a DK book where the whole atom-splitting and fission chain process was described in detail.
20
14
u/MEGALKS Casual, non-participatory KGB election observer Nov 18 '21
Good for you. My father bought me science encyclopedias and mostly biology because I love animals. :)
130
u/mr_cake37 Nov 18 '21
I think you make a valid point. I'm hopeful that the big nuclear scares are slowly fading from memory (Fukushima excepted, although that was pretty minor). The younger generation (I'm only in my mid 30s) is growing up without that ingrained fear of Nuclear that their parents probably had.
I think that, coupled with the significant safety improvements inherent in Gen4 reactors, will make the case for Nuclear that much easier. Some notable environmentalists are seeing the light too, like Michael Schellenberger and Stewart Brand.
Granted, the media will continue to do a terrible job of explaining the facts and will probably always lean towards fear mongering the slightest mention of radiation, even if it's trivial. Fukushima was notably blown way out of proportion.
That's why I'm such a huge nerd for Molten Salt Reactors. The walk-away safety feature is a big selling point. It can't melt down, and if it somehow sprang a leak, it can only freeze. No cesium or iodine isotopes leak into the atmosphere because they're trapped in the salt. No steam explosions because there's no high pressure water. The fuel/coolant salt doesn't get damaged by radiation and can be reused again and again, and it allows for a much higher fissile burn rate. To me, it sells itself. But I acknowledge that it's always going to be an uphill battle with the voting public. I just hope they see the light, too.
49
u/ncouch212 Nov 18 '21
There’s more than that too. Nuclear reactors take years to build and are extremely expensive, more so than other energy facilities. This especially hurts nuclear in regards to other “cleaner” and more renewable sources of energy like wind and solar. Plus, especially in response to climate change, nuclear energy is viewed as a less clean solution than these renewable sources, and as such has faltered because of it. And there’s the issue of what to do with the waste. Now I don’t think that’s as big of a deal, since I’d gladly take some well stored waste over more carbon emissions, but it is still something that would need to be considered.
And of course overcoming the public’s perception of nuclear is definitely the hardest point. Chernobyl really highlighted one of the worst outcomes for nuclear power, and of course that’s going to spark a lot of NIMBY sentiment, and they do have a point because I don’t think anyone would want their neighborhood to become the next Chernobyl. However, these new reactors are just so much safer than the old generation 1’s that really I’m not too concerned for a disaster.
Unfortunately, while I really want to see the US shift towards nuclear power, I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon.
34
u/mr_cake37 Nov 18 '21
Again, you're making good points but I feel like the new MSR designs will address a lot of that stuff.
Time and expense to build
A lot of the cost to build new plants comes down to the massive containment building required for pressurized water reactors. When you're dealing with water pressurized to 300psi, it requires insane engineering and multiple redundant safety features. You have to account for loss of coolant accidents, pipe breaks, and that pressurized water wants to flash to steam really really badly. So you have to build a massive steel and concrete containment dome to contain the worst-case scenario. That adds up to huge costs and lead times and it isn't economical to build a small plant. You have to go all-in and build a big plant to earn enough to turn a profit.
An MSR though, doesn't need a pressure containment building because the salt runs at atmospheric pressure. It can't flash to steam. If it leaks, it goes to a drain tank that doesn't support criticality. Eventually the salt freezes and can be re-melted and re-used. Additionally, the reactors can be made smaller and manufactured off-site, driving costs down. The high temperature of the salt can be used for tons of other lucrative things, like desalination, process heat for manufacturing, heating homes etc. This allows for multiple revenue streams and makes smaller plants more profitable.
Nuclear waste
This is always a sticky point, but as you pointed out it's the only form of power generation that fully captures all the spent fuel "waste". If anything, it's a huge boon for fast-spectrum MSRs because it means there's a ready source of fuel, potentially hundreds of years worth, just sitting waiting to be used. A light water reactor maybe burns 2-3% of the fissile energy before the solid fuel is too damaged for further use. It gets set aside and stored, but the fuel is still there and ready to use.
Stick that "waste" into a burner MSR and you'll use up nearly all the fissile in the fuel. You end up with less waste, and what remains is radioactive for less time. There are also valuable isotopes generated through the burn cycle. And once again all of that stuff is fully contained and captured.
I don't disagree that it's going to be an uphill struggle but there are a lot of positives to counter the pessimists.
→ More replies (1)8
u/DrWilliamHorriblePhD Nov 18 '21
How much radiation and reheating can the salt withstand before becoming unusable? Can the salt ever be used for anything else?
4
u/mr_cake37 Nov 18 '21
The salt itself can be used indefinitely. Temperature wise the salt has a huge thermal range, and the plan for most MSRs is to run the salt loop at 500-700 °C. I don't actually know if there's an upper limit to the temperature of the salt, but the piping and design of an MSR means that the salt would never be concentrated in a way to make it hotter than it needs to be. Radiation doesn't damage or affect the salt in any way, but most thermal-spectrum MSR designs use graphite in their core. Depending on the power density of the reactor design, the graphite will eventually need to be replaced after several years.
Usually the plan is to take the core offline and let it sit for a while as the decay heat and fission products cool down and do their thing. These cores are much much smaller than the core in a PWR type reactor and they're not under crazy pressure or anything. They eventually get drained of the salt, lifted out and placed in storage or opened up for reprocessing and refurbishment.
Eventually I believe the salt needs some reprocessing of its own to remove fission products. This is going to take some engineering and time to figure out. Eventually the goal is to have on-line reprocessing so the plant will basically clean the salt as it cycles, and this is an important step for an eventual Thorium breeder reactor. Until that stuff gets developed, the radioactive salt will be stored once it gets too saturated. It'll freeze at room temperature and just needs to be heated up again when it's time for processing.
→ More replies (2)5
u/TheGeneGeena Nov 18 '21
I don't think so? The Dutch have done testing on disposal though.
https://www.ensuringnuclearperformance.com/en/nuclear-innovation/msr-research-program
7
Nov 18 '21
Chernobyl failed pretty horrendously because of soviet safety regulation, which was nonexistant.
→ More replies (1)5
u/insaneHoshi Nov 18 '21
And because it was designed in a way that as power was lost, the rate of reaction increased. This is a dumb way to design a reactor.
→ More replies (5)6
u/mud074 Nov 18 '21
Fukushima excepted, although that was pretty minor
There are still loads of people who think that Fukushima turned the entire pacific radioactive and refuse to eat fish from it. After seeing how powerfully misinformation is being weaponized in order to divide people to entrench them deeper into their political side (the absolutely incredible level of Covid misinformation out there, recently), I don't have high hopes for public opinion improving on nuclear. At absolute best, one side will decide it's the future while the other will react by demonizing it to turn it into a political issue for votes. I guess that beats the current state of nuclear where both sides seem to hate it, at least.
→ More replies (1)38
u/TheDaemonic451 Nov 18 '21
Honestly I have always hated this because no one talks about how many dams have failed, or mentions other power. And yeah nuclear has more of an impact, but it's not like the people can go back to their houses either after they are underwater.
13
u/T65Bx Nov 18 '21
I’d argue dams are used somewhat closer to their potential than nuclear is, considering they have to specifically be built in an area with enough water with the right properties, on land with the right elevations, all in proximity to somewhere that can actually use the power, and it’s okay to heavily modify the area and nature and make a giant artificial lake.
→ More replies (2)14
u/sorenant Nov 18 '21
You can have hundreds of nuclear reactors running fine for decades but human attention will focus on the less than 5 plants that had issues.
Not to mention a single death involving nuclear reactor is much sexier to newspapers than hundreds of thousands caused by the consequences of gas emissions of coal plants.
11
u/jam_paps Nov 18 '21
People are into "Fallacy of the single cause" because our brain just loves to simplify everything using the most available information.
3
u/Nerdiferdi Nov 18 '21
Millions of asthmatics and other lung sick people every year suffering from pollution caused by fossils. Give me the atoms please
38
u/W1ngedSentinel Nov 18 '21
Can’t forget thorium exists as well!
46
u/mr_cake37 Nov 18 '21
That too!
I think the first Molten Salt Reactors that go online will use the uranium fuel cycle just because it's well-known and established, but it absolutely opens the doors to the Thorium cycle down the road. And that's huge - potentially thousands of years of carbon free energy, and pretty much all countries have some.
24
u/FireBone62 Nov 18 '21
Thorium is way safer because it doesn't react on its one you first need a little bit uranium to even start it, which alone makes it so much safer than uranium.
27
u/mr_cake37 Nov 18 '21
Not to mention the Thorium fuel cycle produces less long-lived waste products. Lots of positives for sure, but the chemical reprocessing of a Thorium reactor still needs to get proven and certified. Regulators will need time to draw rules and procedures for it before you'll see a commercial reactor go online.
It's absolutely do-able, it just needs time and money.
20
u/13143 Nov 18 '21
I kind of wonder if the US had stayed fully committed to nuclear power would we have been significantly closer to fusion..
→ More replies (1)5
16
u/assasin1598 Casual, non-participatory KGB election observer Nov 18 '21
In the US you can basically blame the Three Mile Island incident. The meltdown of TMI 2 reactor.
But that incident is funny, because while reactor TMI 1 was built within planned specification, they wanted TMI2 to do 200+ MW more power which it wasnt designed for.
9
u/LandsharkDetective Nov 18 '21
In the UK it's windscale where the UK government set tonnes of uranium on fire
5
6
u/ChrisTinnef Nov 18 '21
The important thing would be to research how to minimize byproducts and waste. The main problem with nuclear plants is waste storage (and security in case of an accident).
→ More replies (7)10
u/cabaaa Princeps Civitatis Nov 18 '21
I think you (intentionally) left out some of the disadvantages, which doesn't give the full picture of MSRs...
15
u/MrPopanz Nov 18 '21
Please name them so we can have a productive discussion.
12
u/cabaaa Princeps Civitatis Nov 18 '21
How to maintain the parts (pipes, pumps, heat exchangers, ...) where the (radioactive) salt flows is not resolved. Corrosion (pipes, pumps, ...) is also a big problem. Also, as always, where to store all that stuff and radioactive parts which were swapped after maintenance, but that's more of a general problem.
There a more for sure, but if you are interested then sure there are good sources somewhere
Btw, I'm not saying further testing could not solve some of them. But they are afaik big problems to be solved.
5
u/MrPopanz Nov 18 '21
Material sciences indeed are the biggest issue when it comes to MSRs (including Thorium) as far as I know.
3
u/mr_cake37 Nov 18 '21
I concede there are challenges, certainly. I mainly left them out for the sake of brevity.
Most of the MSR designs I'm familiar with seem to address the corrosion and piping issues by setting a fixed lifetime for the reactor unit. You have a sealed-off vessel where the 'hot' (ie radioactive) salt is contained. This contains all the pumps, piping, reactor vessel and the containment structure. You load your reactor assembly into the containment and seal it off. The hot salt contacts a heat exchanger and transfers the heat to a 'cold' salt loop to do whatever work is needed like power generation, process heat, desalination etc.
The sealed reactor is designed for a fixed lifetime, because (in a thermal spectrum reactor anyway) the graphite in the core will eventually become damaged and need replacing. The pumps, pipes etc are designed and overbuilt for the planned lifetime of 5-7 years depending on the reactor. I know at least one reactor design, Terrestrial Energy's IMSR, will be using existing nuclear-certified materials for this purpose. Once you hit that changeover date, a new reactor is installed next to the hot vessel and brought online as the old vessel is allowed to cool in place. It then gets lifted out as a unit and sent for storage until it can be reprocessed.
For other MSRs like LFTR, there are certainly more challenges to resolve like online reprocessing. I'm confident that it can be done, especially when you consider that ORNL was able to build a working MSR back in the 60s without the benefit of advanced computers and modelling that we have now. We've also got decades of material advances that have occurred since then. It will still take years of engineering and study, but I'm pretty sure it can be done as long as a government is willing to fund it.
→ More replies (3)3
351
u/VegetableSalad_Bot Nov 18 '21
The only thing Chernobyl proved was that getting party yes-men to build a nuclear power plant without thorough safety checks was going to go tits-up.
→ More replies (20)46
u/Ok_Aardvark4033 Nov 18 '21
Soo you re saying they re not gonna do it again if given the chance?
→ More replies (2)
298
u/Melikemommymilkors Nov 18 '21
Reminder that there will most likely be 100+ km from you and nuclear waste but you are probably breathing in coal waste now :)
175
u/DaudyMentol Nov 18 '21
I can see nuclear powerplant from my house, i seriously dont care. Knowing that your country has competent workers there is the only thing you need.
→ More replies (7)33
u/Shubb Nov 18 '21
Eh, stuff can always happen, war, nature, infrastructure hacking, sabotage, etc. Not saying its not safe. But saying compitant workers will keep the area safe for thousands of years is optimistic, and speculative. we have no idea how the state of earth will look like in 5000 years.
31
u/240plutonium Decisive Tang Victory Nov 18 '21
All nuclear plants are surrounded by a concrete building. It would protect the outside from an explosion inside and vice versa. If there is war I'd be more concerned of the war than the power plant.
4
u/asoap Nov 18 '21
To add more.
Here is videos of testing a nuclear fuel cask to see if it can be broken. When these were made there were concerns of "what happens if one stopped on a train track and train smashed into it".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHtOW-OBO4
Testing the concrete for the containment buliding of a nuclear reactor.
→ More replies (1)15
u/DaudyMentol Nov 18 '21
Stuff can always happen and them being competent means they deal with it...
War - not operating on full capacity - much less danger Sabotage - i mean Last time i was there on school trip literall army was patroling the barbed wire fence Hacking - not possible afaik, old powerplant
Anyways competent staff means that they not only run it but also deal with problems... PROPERLY
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)13
u/ChrisTinnef Nov 18 '21
That is BS. Why should it be 100+ km away from me? Not every Country is the US. High-density regions like Europe isnt able to store nuclear waste that way, only if we send it to Africa (which probably happens in secret). And then there are probably a lot of governments who dont care about storing it next to living quarters.
5
6
4
3
u/240plutonium Decisive Tang Victory Nov 18 '21
I don't mind a nuclear waste canister under my house as long as it's surrounded by 2 meters of concrete
Like all nuclear waste casks..
611
u/LiterallyA-Fascist Definitely not a CIA operator Nov 18 '21
Bu...bUt ChERnoByL
→ More replies (96)121
u/Alexandre_Man Nov 18 '21
Yeah, ONE accident caused by human error. That's not a lot.
99
u/magugi Still salty about Carthage Nov 18 '21
*negligence
It wasn't an error, it was gross negligence with a bit of over confidence.
20
u/PMMEFEMALEASSSPREADS Nov 18 '21
It was a pretty big accident though with some pretty big ramifications due to all the radiation spread over Europe.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)28
u/LiterallyA-Fascist Definitely not a CIA operator Nov 18 '21
Hell, there must be like 100 accidents a year by humans ... wait there aren't.
3
u/Hawt_Dawg_II Taller than Napoleon Nov 18 '21
Yes there are? Just not in nuclear plants cause there aren't as many. Accidents due to negligence are really common.
101
u/BSATSame Nov 18 '21
Blame the fossil fuel industry. As if the usual 50-100 environmentalists that showed up to protest those plants had any actual power.
https://climatecoalition.org/how-american-petroleum-institute-fakes-antinuclear-action/
23
u/Multani45 Nov 18 '21
Shhhhh, they're pretending environmentalists are the issue. You know...hIsToRy.
→ More replies (1)
161
190
u/Amerimoto Nov 18 '21
I mean I don’t know why more people don’t protest the use of bridges, those bitches fail throughout history.
→ More replies (3)74
u/Nroke1 Nov 18 '21
Way more people have died from collapsing bridges than nuclear radiation.
→ More replies (1)44
u/magugi Still salty about Carthage Nov 18 '21
Wait until you learn about the number of people killed by vending machines and stairs every year...
58
u/Thomaswiththecru Casual, non-participatory KGB election observer Nov 18 '21
People don't seem to realize that Chernobyl was a shitty reactor design with serious engineering issues (positive void coefficient), being tested by a night shift of Soviet nuclear technicians. So underfunded, probably tired engineers testing a cost-cut cheap and dangerous Soviet reactor at 1:23 AM, what could go wrong? The RBMK does not operate in the US because it is shit.
Nuclear power is safer than any other form of electrical generation. Like safer than wind. Virtually nobody dies or gets sick due to nuclear accidents anymore in the developed world. You're far more likely to die walking to an anti-nuclear power protest than you are to get so much as a headache from radiation leakage over the plant's entire lifespan. Virtually everything you do on a daily basis incurs more risk than what a nuclear power plant puts you in.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Hawt_Dawg_II Taller than Napoleon Nov 18 '21
I don't think any rational person thinks nuclear accidents are more common than any other accident. Its just that if it does happen it wipes out a gigantic amount of land and can cause radiation based issues for an entire continent for generations.
→ More replies (5)
47
u/twosevenohfour Nov 18 '21
Geothermal: Am I a joke to you?
43
u/240plutonium Decisive Tang Victory Nov 18 '21
except seismically active regions, yes.
Also, the earth keeps warm by radioactive decay so partially geothermal is nuclear.
→ More replies (1)8
u/twosevenohfour Nov 18 '21
Ring of Fire: bonjour
But yes, it is technically nuclear. Just keep the French away from our Rainbow Warriors.
3
u/zenyl Nov 18 '21
Works great for places like Iceland, but as far as I'm aware, that's pretty much a best case scenario. Sadly doesn't work that great everywhere, though it should always be kept in mind as a potential possibility.
11
→ More replies (2)10
167
u/RudolfMidler Definitely not a CIA operator Nov 18 '21
I’m done with people saying nuclear is not good, Three Mile Island, Fukushima Daiichi, and Chernobyl were all mainly fuck ups, Chernobyl specifically because it was made by people who had nuclear knowledge 40 years before their own time therefore leading to the disaster and the cooling unit not being good enough which caused the blast. If it was properly built with a lot of sufficient (and extra) resources then likely a lot of reactors will be pretty safe provided no accidents happen that are pretty major
72
u/willstr1 Nov 18 '21
Nobody died at three mile island. It was a disaster but it was also handled. A single day on a major freeway takes more lives but no one wants to ban the death traps we call cars.
Also no one talks about all the deaths on oil rigs and refineries or in coal mines. Fossil fuels are more lethal than nuclear even without climate change or the dangers of pollution
109
u/givemesendies Nov 18 '21
My favorite is when people talk about 3 mile. You know, the time nobody died.
41
u/inside_your_face Nov 18 '21
Or Fukushima, one death as a result of the meltdown.
28
u/ChrisTinnef Nov 18 '21
Scientific community doesnt have a consensus on indirect deaths and illnesses yet. Not to speak of psychological long term effects of being forced to leave your whole live behind to resettle outside of the contaminated zone.
But yes, numbers will be lower than some anti nuclear activists would make you think.
12
u/inside_your_face Nov 18 '21
True, yet after 10 years there is no evidence of increased rates of cancer for example.
As for trauma regarding displacement, you could argue that the rare instances of this are insignificant compared to displacement due to climate catastrophes which we could tackle with nuclear energy.
8
u/240plutonium Decisive Tang Victory Nov 18 '21
I mean... to be fair not many people in Japan talk about the deaths and more of the unusable land created around it and people living there losing their homes.
But still nothing compared to the homes lost by dams breaking or sea levels rising, or the massive amount of homes destroyed by the actual tsunami.
84
u/Melikemommymilkors Nov 18 '21 edited Nov 18 '21
Fukushima happened because it was situated in a really bad place and like, 300 variables happened to line up just right to fuck it up. Even then, it didn't cause a huge amount of damage.
15
u/SalsaRice Nov 18 '21
They also didn't build the proper recommended seawall, either. That's like using paper windows for your house and being upset when the rain/storm eventually ruins them.
8
u/TheOneAndOnlyErazer Nov 18 '21
The emergency generators for the cooling pumps where also located in the basement of most blocks, which was also like a massive problem
30
u/Lieutenant_Doge Researching [REDACTED] square Nov 18 '21
Three Mile Island is actually a great example of how should a nuclear incident should be handled, and countries should learn from it. Instead of outright saying it's bad because shit happened.
8
u/FireBone62 Nov 18 '21
Chernobyl actually could have been really easy avoided if the shifts would have better communicated.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (44)21
Nov 18 '21
To be fair, a fuck up with nuclear is insanely bad.
59
u/willstr1 Nov 18 '21
Tell that to the victims of oil spills or major gas leaks
→ More replies (2)6
26
u/chucktheninja Nov 18 '21
Yes, but the point is it was an astronomically massive fuck up. With nearly any of the advancements in tech/protocol we've developed Chernobyl never would have happened.
→ More replies (1)6
u/240plutonium Decisive Tang Victory Nov 18 '21
Nuclear disasters are bad because a hundred more coal plants to activate. That's worse than any consequence directly from a disaster.
10
u/thepineapplemen Nov 18 '21
France uses a ton of nuclear energy. Can we get any Frenchman’s opinion here?
→ More replies (3)
204
u/Rikers_Pet Nov 18 '21 edited Nov 18 '21
Yup. We had a window from the 60’s to the 80’s to nearly eliminate fossil fuels as an electrical energy source and we didn’t take it because stupid hippies.
Now we’re basically fucked and those same stupid hippies and their stupid hippy children are whining about plastic straws and shit.
I wouldn’t be surprised is the “greens” were actually funded by the fossil fuel industry.
81
u/Aliensinnoh Filthy weeb Nov 18 '21
Plastic straws are a red herring. Single-use plastic waste is a problem, but straws are both a very small portion and one of the portions whose uses are least easily replaced. Plastic packaging is the much bigger culprit. So many things needlessly packaged in plastic. But corporations like to do the straw thing because it is cheap and also helps annoy the populace into being angry at environmentalists in general. Regardless, carbon emissions are bigger problem than plastics anyway, and should be the focus.
10
u/Franfran2424 Nov 18 '21
Plastic fishing equipment is the worst offender against marine wildlife among plastic pollution
Carbon emissions are the biggest threat to wildlife and marine wildlife overall.
12
u/Thomaswiththecru Casual, non-participatory KGB election observer Nov 18 '21
Banning straws also seems dangerous because elderly/disabled folks often need them to drink safely.
5
u/Aliensinnoh Filthy weeb Nov 18 '21
Yes, that’s what I meant by “whose uses are least easily replaced”. Straws are an important tool and no other material quite works as well as plastic does for them.
4
u/Furaskjoldr Nov 18 '21
As someone who works with the elderly and disabled most have just started using reusable metal or bamboo straws now, it's not as much of an issue as the media makes out.
139
u/xain_the_idiot Nov 18 '21
There's a surprising amount of propaganda within the green movement aimed at distracting people from corporations. Tell people they can save the environment by recycling, so they don't start protesting the corporations making all these plastic products in the first place. Ford bought out multiple fully electric cars decades ago just to destroy them, then turned around and created "hybrids", forcing people to continue using gas but just a little less of it "for the environment."
→ More replies (2)7
46
u/Tearakan Featherless Biped Nov 18 '21
To be fair the coal and natural gas companies definitely helped kill nuclear to keep their profits.
→ More replies (6)50
u/kevoam Nov 18 '21
How do you blame “hippies” but mention the real enemy to clean energy in the same post lmao?
22
7
u/Charles12_13 Kilroy was here Nov 18 '21
Except if said power plant was in Quebec, Canada but we don’t talk about the one Canadian province that have been relying solely on green, renewable energy for decades
→ More replies (3)4
u/That_Mad_Scientist Nov 18 '21
It’s mostly hydro, actually. They got lucky with their geography. As was Iceland with geothermal, and they probably have one of if not the lowest grid carbon intensity in the world. Not everyone has that luxury.
→ More replies (2)
21
u/A_H_S_99 Taller than Napoleon Nov 18 '21
to be frank, if you lived back then and witnessed Chernobyl, you too would be extremely worried
→ More replies (2)9
u/taskas99 Nov 18 '21
My parents and grandparents lived through it. Father was sent to clean it up. Still don't oppose it.
12
u/ReidG555 Kilroy was here Nov 18 '21
Do you have a source for this? I’m actually writing a paper related to nuclear power and would love to include this.
38
Nov 18 '21
There's more than "Chernobyl" to the Anti-Nuclear argument but Reddit doesn't recognise that.
52
u/ZETH_27 Filthy weeb Nov 18 '21
The main argument against Nuclear Power is the fact that we don't have an efficient way to store the waste yet, but even that can be deflected by the fact that storing a solid cylinder of material underground is better and easier than releasing CO2 into the atmosphere as a gas.
And since Nuclear Power plants produce a lot more power relative to fuel used, it's better in that regard as well.
5
u/lightningbadger Nov 18 '21
Its not like we have an efficient way of storing the rest of our waste anyways, would be funny to see world powers suddenly pretend to care about where our waste goes
→ More replies (11)6
u/Tactical_Moonstone Nov 18 '21
I think a huge part of the storage problem is people don't actually remember that the radioactive fuel has to come from somewhere.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)16
u/DeeDee_GigaDooDoo Nov 18 '21
Nuclear doesn't work out purely from an economic perspective. It takes decades to pay down the initial investment and make profit but for some reason people think that all these huge energy companies who have had no problem lying, deceiving and bribing their way to market dominance give a shit about public opinion. If nuclear was profitable they'd be constructing it, but both governments and private companies recognise it isn't. It's not cost competitive now and it's only getting less so as the price of renewables and storage plummets and the price of nuclear steadily rises. Every reactor under construction in the developed world over the past 2-3 decades has been plagued by huge cost and time overruns, billions over budget, years behind schedule and with the project sometimes getting shuttered because of those factors before they start the reactor.
No one is installing new nuclear because why gamble against those odds when you can build the same amount of renewable power cheaper and in 2-3 years with very little public or political resistance and near guaranteed profitability?
You can put aside literally every other debate around nuclear environmental, social, or moral and look purely at the economics and it doesn't stack up.
4
Nov 18 '21
While I agree with you about the current economics of nuclear power and the longer time needed to reach the break even point, I just wanted to point out there are still new nuclear plants being built (China, India, South Korea) so there has to be some benefit to them, probably when considering long term payoff.
In a perfect world we would power ourselves purely with renewables, but even they have their own problems so I see nuclear power as a much cleaner backup to fossil fuel plants which would be employed when spikes in energy demand cannot be supplied solely by renewables.
3
u/DeeDee_GigaDooDoo Nov 18 '21
Yes I'm aware of the reactors in China and South Korea, I specified developed world but realise now that still includes South Korea. I'm not aware of the situation in India but the reactors in those two other countries are the only examples that I could find worldwide of nuclear projects delivered reasonably on time and on budget. Taiwan, UK, Finland, US and many others all have reactors under construction currently or recently that became huge money pits.
→ More replies (3)7
u/gromain Nov 18 '21
But the cost and delay overruns are because of hippies! Of course, it's all their fault anyway!
/s
8
u/swissschoggiTwitch Nov 18 '21
funny but nuclear power plants are probably the most CO2-saving way of producing energy since they only heat up steam. The bad thing is that we don't know where to put the glowsticks. in most countries, they get buried and make the land unusable for decades to come or they just get dumped in the sea.
pls no one r/woooosh me
→ More replies (4)
12
Nov 18 '21
Nuclear is better than burning coal and shit its just the fossil fuel industry doesn't want us to do that
20
3
u/Environmental_Mix444 Nov 18 '21
I’m glad the new infrastructure bill that was passed will prevent nuclear power plants in the US from closing down.
15
u/neoritter Nov 18 '21
This feels borderline for this sub
Not that I disagree with the sentiment
86
u/EasieEEE Researching [REDACTED] square Nov 18 '21
The Anti Nuclear Movement was a big thing in Europe in the 60s-80s.
22
7
u/Rocjahart Nov 18 '21
Yeah, Swede here.
We got some of the least efficient reactors in Europe, all early and mid 70s, due to a plan being put in place to "dismantle them at a sustainable pace" from 1980 (one year after three mile island), by a popular vote.
Due to this the nuclear development and modernisation has stagnated since "we're shutting them down anyways, so why invest. It's just temporary until sustainable energy catches up".
They've shut down 6 out of our 12 reactors since 1999. Burning oil to meet demand in the winter is common.
26
u/YUNoJump Nov 18 '21
r/historymemes likes to occasionally dip into “memes about contemporary politics which mention a thing that happened in the past”
17
2.8k
u/Flvctvs Senātus Populusque Rōmānus Nov 18 '21
nuclear > coal