Tbh the statistics are pretty great for nuclear.
deleted by creator
They’re right
deleted by creator
Ambiguous delivery on your part, came off as sarcastic
Generation IV power plants can be designed so that they are physically incapable of going into meltdown. And the technology is getting better and better at reusing the waste.
So, of course, one would prefer a nuclear power plant.
If anything, we really need to update old power plants and replace all other non-renewable plants with cleaner power, renewable or not.
Bruh I think most of the people answering this are imagining 3-Mile Island…
Well nuclear power plants create something more useful than ai data centers, nuclear waste.
Nuclear waste can be reprocessed and reused. France has been doing it for decades. Or you could reuse it in a thorium reactor, which needs less reprocessing.
Another thing people forget about is that nuclear power is the main source for tritium, which we have a shortage of and it’s getting worse as more nuclear plants are decommissioned. Tritium has a lot of uses, but it’s most noteworthy use is fuel for fusion power. If decommission all nuclear plants, fusion research is effectively dead in the water
Hell, some of the more modern designs barely produce that…
I still remember learning that and about breeder reactors (they produce fissile material from common isotopes) and feeling so betrayed by the common zeitgeist
Indeed, nuclear is among the safest and cleanest forms of energy currently available to us! All the waste in the world for life barely fills a few football fields’ worth of space, if I recall correctly.
One football field 10 meters high to be precise.
One football field 10 meters high
You’re mixing US and metric measurement systems there. You should either stick to meters or come up with a sports analogy for the height.
What if their from the parts of the world that call “soccer” football and also use metric? Which is basically everyone.
That’s only true now because for decades, the UK called it Soccer from a shortening of Association Football to separate it from “Rugger” or Rugby Football.
Now, Rugby has dropped the “football” and soccer is now only an American term because the brits decided to stop using the term THEY coined.
The issue with waste is not the volume but the duration.
But surely you’d agree that we have more than enough space for even lifetime storage, no? Compare that to the junk emitted from nearly everything else. What is your proposed alternative?
Space is not a problem in. The issue is finding a safe place. And the timescale is so huge that it is very difficult to manage.
Some groups have started to extract materials from nuclear waste that can provide Targeted Alpha Therapy for cancer patients, so very true.
Masterful comment delivery, kudos
Much of which can be used in hospitals for life saving medical uses! Double dunk on AI failures.
That you can use for gardening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening
Loads depleted uranium rounds with militaristic intent
Electricity too
Came here to say that one gives and the other one takes.
I want to say “no shit” but then I remembered that most people have no idea how safe nuclear reactors actually are
There’s a huge anti-nuclear crowd, I’d prefer we focus on renewables as much as possible but it’s stupid not to phase out oil/gas for nuclear as a more consistent source.
There’s a huge anti-nuclear crowd
Which was grass-rooted by oil companies back in the 70s.
astroturfed. Because it’s fake grass-roots.
Wait, is that what astroturfing refers to?! That makes so much sense now.
Yeah, I learned it after years of seeing it on reddit, because someone finally explained it lol
I know how safe they haven’t been - so that’s something.
I know environmental regulations mean nothing anymore and safety costs a lot of money. And profit is always the aim.
I’m sure it’s decades ahead of what was tried in the 70s and 80s. I’m sure it’s light years over coal and gas. And yet, I’m hesitant.
Can we just have renewables please? Look- other people got ‘em all over now. Wind, solar, wave, geothermal, battery types and capacities improving all the time. Ffs this was what it was it was supposed to be the whole time.
I know how safe they haven’t been - so that’s something.
do you? Nuclear, Solar, and Wind are all roughly equally safe.
do you?
Yeah, I do.
Note this section:
Transparency
China doesn’t deliver much useful information about the incidents of its fast growing fleet of nuclear power plants. The same problem exists with Russia, after Glasnost -transparency again under Vladimir Putin.
- 2024 Nuclear incident at Khabarovsk, Russia
- 2022–2023 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant leak
- 2019 Radiation release during explosion and fire at Russian nuclear missile test site
- 2017 Airborne radioactivity increase in Europe in autumn 2017
- 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
- 2010 Mayapuri radiological accident
- 2007 Radioactive leakage in C.N. Ascó I (Ascó - Tarragona)
- 2004 Mihama Nuclear Power Plant accident
- 2001 Instituto Oncologico Nacional radiotherapy accident
- 2000 Samut Prakan radiation accident, Thailand.[3]
- 1999 and 1997 Tokaimura nuclear accidents
- 1996 San Juan de Dios radiotherapy accident
- 1994 Theft of radioactive material in Tammiku, Estonia.[4]
- 1993 Tomsk-7 accident at the Reprocessing Complex in Seversk, Russia, when a tank exploded while being cleaned with nitric acid. The explosion released a cloud of radioactive gas (INES level 4).[5]
- 1990 Clinic of Zaragoza radiotherapy accident
- 1987 Goiânia accident
- 1986 Chernobyl disaster and Effects of the Chernobyl disaster
- 1985 Explosion during refuelling of the K-431 (formerly K-31) submarine
- 1984 Radiation accident in Morocco
- 1982 Lost radiation source in Baku, Azerbaijan, USSR.[6]
- 1980 Houston radiotherapy accident.[6][7]
- 1979 Church Rock uranium mill spill
- 1979 Three Mile Island accident and Three Mile Island accident health effects
- 1974–1976 Columbus radiotherapy accident.[6][7]
- 1969 Lucens reactor
- 1968 Thule B-52 crash
- 1966 Palomares B-52 crash
- 1964 SNAP 9a satellite releases plutonium over the planet earth, an estimated 630 TBq or 2100 person-Sv[citation needed] of radiation was released.
- 1962 Thor missile launch failures during nuclear weapons testing at Johnston Atoll under Operation Fishbowl
- 1962 Radiation accident in Mexico City
- 1961 SL-1 nuclear meltdown
- 1961 K-19 nuclear accident
- 1959 SRE partial nuclear meltdown at Santa Susana Field Laboratory
- 1958 Mailuu-Suu tailings dam failure
- 1957 Kyshtym disaster
- 1957 Windscale fire
- 1957 Operation Plumbbob
- 1954 Totskoye nuclear exercise
- 1946–1954 Bikini Atoll nuclear tests
- Hanford Site
- Rocky Flats Plant, see also radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant
- Techa River
- Pollution of Lake Karachay
- 1945 and 1946 Demon core
- 1942 Leipzig L-IV experiment accident
Nice list, but what you’ve demonstrated is that you in fact don’t understand.
You’ve listed out just about every nuclear incident in history. And I mean every nuclear incident, not just nuclear power related. A number of the ones you’ve listed were medical accidents (patients receiving excessive doses, and one incident where a medical device being dismantled was done improperly), or accidental exposure from orphaned sources.
The reality is that there have been no deaths from nuclear power generation in this millennium.
Excluding Chernobyl, 90% of all radiation-exposure deaths from nuclear generation happened before 1962. If we include Chernobyl, then that jumps to 1986 (the year of Chernobyl).
After Chernobyl, there were 5 deaths from radiation exposure, and none after 2000.
Modern nuclear is extremely safe.
The reason all of those incidents have their own Wikipedia pages is because incidents/accidents in a global scale are very rare, and when they do happen it’s a full-blown investigation with extensive reports. Even for a minor alert of elevated radiation readings by the nuclear facility.
If you had bothered to read the links you posted, instead of copying and pasting from Wikipedia (or wherever you copied from) you would have understood that.
Nice list, but what you’ve demonstrated is that you in fact don’t understand. You’ve listed out just about every nuclear incident in history.
YOU don’t understand these are just the ones we know about.
If you had bothered to read the links you posted
If you had bothered to read the post you’re supposedly responding to instead of talking shit on automatic you might have addressed that. But you didn’t. Because you have zero interest in actual discussion.
This is the sound of me hanging up.
*boop*
Ok, how safe haven’t they been? How many were worse than deepwater horizon?
I’m guessing you’ve happily consumed what was given to you on a spoon and accepted that it was representative of the bigger picture.
I grew up an hour from a 1GW reactor that got shut down in part due to “concerned citizens” like yourself. The site it stood on is still periodically checked by the DOE but is now a recreational area. How often do old coal plants do that?
Ok, how safe haven’t they been? How many were worse than deepwater horizon?
See above. None were worse than Hiroshima - at least as far as we can determine.
I’m guessing you’ve happily consumed what was given to you on a spoon and accepted that it was representative of the bigger picture.
? Okay? Fuck you too, I guess?
I grew up an hour from a 1GW reactor that got shut down in part due to “concerned citizens” like yourself. The site it stood on is still periodically checked by the DOE but is now a recreational area. How often do old coal plants do that?
So you were heavily propagandized as a child. Makes sense. The reasons why nuclear and coal plants are different are many and varied! For more information, consult your local library.
None were worse than Hiroshima
Do… do you think that “Hiroshima” was a nuclear power plant that “accidentally exploded”, as opposed to a purpose built weapon?
Okay? Fuck you too, I guess?
The point they were making was that there is a proven long standing history of “other players” like the oil industry heavily astroturfing against nuclear, because they wanted to protect their own industry from a better alternative.
So you were heavily propagandized as a child.
Seems like you were literally the one propagandized. Only people who are misinformed are so against nuclear.
Do… do you think that “Hiroshima” was a nuclear power plant that “accidentally exploded”, as opposed to a purpose built weapon?
JFC
Seems like you were literally the one propagandized. Only people who are misinformed are so against nuclear.
Good luck after graduation.
Good luck after graduation.
I’d bet good money that I’m older than you.
I’d take that bet you’re gonna regret 'cause I’m the oldest there’s ever been
I know how safe they haven’t been
No, you really don’t.
Compare what you think you know with the reality of how nuclear power is used all over the world and safely.
Even Fukushima wasn’t that bad in terms of human casualties. It was the tsunami that caused all the loss of life and damage.
Not to say that the Fukushima nuclear incident wasn’t a disaster. But there were no direct deaths from it, and as far as anyone knows, no one has died of even indirect causes.
And there are a LOT of operating nuclear plants all over the world.
Edit: nuclear power generation has the 2nd least amount of deaths attributed to it out of all energy sources, beaten only by solar and only by a small margin.
Even Fukushima wasn’t that bad in terms of human casualties.
This is such a bizarre qualifier. Like when people handwave climate change because the rocks will still be here.
How is it bizarre? Did you ever understand the qualifier? I’m pretty sure you didn’t, so I’ll explain it for you.
It “wasn’t that bad” in regards to human life, because no one died. The implied other side of the quality is that it still was bad because there was a release of radioactive material into the environment.
So you see how it’s bad, unless we’re talking about humans literally dying as a result.
Yay? Am I supposed to give nuclear a point because “only” the environment and animal life was trashed? Okay, sure. “Less Deadly To Humans” than oil. Y’know people still eat Gulf seafood, but if that pipe was spewing radioactive waste for a month, they wouldn’t.
Actually, they probably would. I dunno. Renewables. That’s all.
Yay? Am I supposed to give nuclear a point because “only” the environment and animal life was trashed?
You’re missing the part where Fukushima and Chernobyl were the only major/catastrophic nuclear power accidents in history (edit: aside from a wild one from the 50s before we really understood nuclear energy). And both of them were a result of both bad policy and, more importantly, bad tech/design.
Chernobyl was especially stupid on literally every level possible.
And, like I said earlier but you seem to have “forgotten”, nuclear is safer (has caused less deaths) than ALL other forms of power generation (including renewables) other than solar. And it’s almost on par with solar.
Everything has trade-offs.
Solar needs a LOT of land, works only during the day. Less effective the further north/south you get from the equator.
Wind only works well in certain regions, and requires a significant amount of concrete to build.
Wave power generation only works along coastlines or out at sea. And transmitting that power to where it’s needed isn’t easy and is costly.
Hydro dams are extremely limited to where they can be built, and transitional designs are extremely damaging (although newer types are much better)
Nuclear plants can be built just about anywhere. And newer designs are extremely safe. Canada’s CanDu reactors are practically instructable.
A proper solution is a baseline of nuclear with wind, solar, hydro being built where possible.
Everything has trade-offs.
No shit?
Solar needs a LOT of land, works only during the day. Less effective the further north/south you get from the equator.
Guess what - we already take up a lot of land. Put some solar panels up there ffs. And geothermal’s a thing just fyi.
Wave power generation only works along coastlines or out at sea.
Damn you’re full of useful information.
Nuclear plants can be built just about anywhere. And newer designs are extremely safe. Canada’s CanDu reactors are practically instructable.
Instructable? Cool. That’s a thing nuclear designs should be.
A proper solution is a baseline of nuclear with wind, solar, hydro being built where possible.
We actually agree on that but your nuclear blathering takes too long. You got a 10’ x 10’ reactor for Hudson Bay then kudos, NOW can we get renewables set up OH AND a distribution network for our friends too far north or south to benefit from 12 hours of sun a day like in Norway o wait
Technically speaking, everything is nuclear power. The sun, our star, is a fusion generator.
Wind? winds are caused by weather patterns, which are caused by the sun, either through radiative heating or tidal forces.
Solar? Also the sun.
Hell, nearly every element in existence is the result of fusion in stars. Like coal and natural gas.
Even chemical reactions in batteries are an indirect result of nuclear power.
Geothermal energy is not nuclear power, tidal energy isn’t either.
Considering that everything comes from stars, even planets themselves, yes. Yes it is 🤣
That’s not really how energy works. If you want to be that pedantic then all energy comes from gravity, because gravity is required for stars to fuse hydrogen.
Since data centers will be run by nuclear power on-site in the future they will soon have both…
Why build a nuclear power plant with your data center if you could just get power from the grid and drive up everyone else’s price too? It’s cheaper for the data center operator.
Because eventually the grid electricity costs too much. If you consume more than the community, then the prices will be astronomical. Then it is profitable to build a power plant. If they are generous, they could even sell some electricity to the community for a “reasonable” price.
Because eventually the grid electricity costs too much
Only a couple hundred mill a year per data center. Building a nuclear power plant costs several billion and isn’t free to operate either, so it’s not pure capex, there’s still opex involved.
If you consume more than the community, then the prices will be astronomical
Prices rise for everyone so it becomes the community’s problem as much as it becomes the data center’s problem. The US in particular has three grids, so in reality, the community is either the western US, the eastern US, or Texas.
Then it is profitable to build a power plant.
Profitable over a decade or more maybe. The data center isn’t guaranteed to be in operation for that long. You know those ~30-40k USD “graphics” cards they use? The ones that a single AI data center would likely have tens of thousands of, often even around 100k? They’re used for about 3 years usually, often less. They become obsolete in that timeframe, just unable to compete with newer products in terms of both raw performance as well as efficiency. That’s up to 3 billion dollars of GPUs every 3 years or less, per data center. Just a tiny economic downturn or people seriously realizing that this bubble is going to have to pop eventually and they’ll have to stop running these data centers.
NPPs also usually take many years to complete. It took nearly two decades for the Finns to get Olkiluoto 3 running. Data centers need to be ready in a few years because in 5 years the AI craze could be over and they’ll no longer be needed.
AI companies ain’t gonna do shit for electricity generation if they’re not forced to.
In my country, joining the grid or upgrading your circuit breaker has a one-time amperage-based fee (assuming you’re close to the substation, otherwise it gets more expensive). I propose that for companies looking to consume huge amounts of electricity, there should also be a mandatory generation capacity increase fee that could be paid out to a nearby municipal power company that then uses it to build more power plants, or to some level of local government that could then sponsor building a power plant or 10.
Edit: Whoever downvoted me must think that data center operators are going to do anything out of the good of their hearts lol
People on lemmy downvote you just for disagreeing ALL the time, even if you make (as you just did) an informed and thoughtful reply. It’s honestly just as bad as Reddit with the downvote shit
Why not both? \s
