Anonymous #1 5d

??? No

28

Anonymous #1 5d

Explain your reasoning

1

Anonymous #3 5d

“Burning” all the uranium in fission destroys nature’s best source of helium. Fusion creates helium as a byproduct, for parties, MRI-cooling, and rigid airships

0

Anonymous #4 5d

Accidentally commented early, whoops. Chernobyl, where the reactor was built like shit even for the time, the operators broke safety procedures, and the government lied about it to cover their own ass. It’s not going to happen again, because nobody builds reactors that way anymore. Coal, natural gas, even hydroelectric power have far worse safety records than nuclear. Saying nuclear is unsafe because of Chernobyl is like saying air travel is unsafe because of the Hindenburg disaster.

25

Anonymous #1 5d

Not in any significantly usable quantity. I know at least one paper that suggests the amount lost from being used in necessary systems (liquid helium cooling of superconducting magnets, for example) would be significantly higher than the amount produced.

5

Anonymous #1 5d

Don’t the fusion reactors require something to cool those magnets too? Would we be able to produce enough for the reactor itself plus some MRI machines?

1

Anonymous #4 5d

I knew some numbskull would come in talking about chernobyl or Fukushima all uninformed and dumb like that

18

Anonymous OP 5d

The common denominator is humans fucking up. Humans will be the ones running developing and building reactors. In a perfect world where no one fucks up ever again, they are wrong. But people do fuck up, a LOT. I think we can figure out a way to utilize nuclear power but even if the only risk is human error, human error is a BIG risk. To wave that away is how the aforementioned disasters happened!!

3

Anonymous #6 5d

sure and human error has caused a lot more problems with other kinds of power too. electricity has to come from somewhere, and the risk with nuclear is overdramatized. there are single dam failures that have caused more deaths than the entire history of nuclear power. We are not going to avoid hydroelectric power because of it.

11

Anonymous #2 5d

Dams are not a very good comparison imo because that comes down to infrastructure failure rather than poor handling of hazardous materials. Flooding is deadly, but it also doesn’t poison the land it touches for 50 years. Electricity- any disaster is localized. An explosion at the plant will not electrocute the neighborhood. An explosion at a nuclear plant would poison a CITY. The risk exaggerated, but the danger is not dramatized at all. Elephants foot.

-2

Anonymous #6 5d

Sounds like planes. Accidents are far rarer, but when an accident happens, it can be catastrophic. When you look at the number of lives lost per mile traveled though, it’s clear that it’s safer than driving

4

Anonymous #6 5d

Yeah buddy your argument is buns through and through. Imagine if some guy in 10,000BC burned down his hut making dinner and humanity never used fire again. There have been more deaths in the last year alone due to fires than there have in the history of nuclear power. And you could very reasonably argue that fire is a hazardous material very susceptible to human error yet it’s used in almost every single household worldwide since man figured out how to harness it. Quit while you’re (not) ahead.

8

Anonymous OP 5d

Chernobyl. Period, end of discussion

-4

Anonymous #4 5d

We should ban boiling water because two groups of people couldn’t do it right, and we should instead succumb to climate change instead?

7

Anonymous #4 5d

bro fell for the oil and gas propaganda, which is kinda embarrassing

8

Anonymous #2 5d

Could also be some German Green Party member 😭

5

Anonymous #5 5d

What part of “end of discussion” is unclear to you

-4

Anonymous #4 5d

Bro thinks that saying “end of discussion” makes him immune to criticism lmao

14

Anonymous #4 5d

Wait wait wait actually. Nuclear power is good. End of discussion.

9

Anonymous #4 5d

Your head is empty. Period, end of discussion

13

Anonymous OP 5d

Watch your tone

0

Anonymous #4 5d

what part of “end of discussion” was unclear to you?

1

Anonymous #2 5d

I was the one who ended the discussion. I don’t appreciate your mockery

-1

Anonymous #4 5d

Watch these nuts bozo you don’t get to dictate a single thing in my comment section😭😭

3

Anonymous #4 5d

Just admit you’re wrong lil bro

0

Anonymous OP 5d

Given the fact that I’m right and you’re wrong I can dictate whatever I want to you. Period, end of discussion

-1

Anonymous #4 5d

genuinely, if you’re a troll, you’re the funniest bitch on the planet. If you’re not, I think your comment history may haunt you when you’re lying awake in bed in a few years at 2 in the morning, cause kinda cringe

7

Anonymous #2 5d

You’re the one who’s gonna be lying awake in bed haunted by your beliefs when Chernobyl 2.0 happens

-1

Anonymous #4 5d

Educate yourself. You’re not as smart as you think you are

7

Anonymous #4 5d

“I’m right and you’re wrong” - most factually wrong mf to ever speak

2

Anonymous #7 5d

Sorry but no. Nuclear is the way to go not is the safest, cleanest, most efficient possible energy source ever produced by man

5

Anonymous #7 5d

There’s space for both. Nuclear is much more efficient in terms of land use and is much more consistent in supply. With solar and wind you deal with a lot of seasonal variation, and you’d need to find land for all those solar panels and windmills. There is heavy opposition to windmills, especially on the coasts near beach property. I understand the concerns about marine life too

1

Anonymous #5 5d

https://www.dw.com/en/is-germanys-nuclear-exit-a-mistake/video-67805576 4:30 of this video actually discusses this issue with seasonal (and even daily) variation in the solar electricity supply

1

Anonymous OP 5d

I am right and you are WRONG

1

Anonymous #4 4d

Pretty cringe, ngl.

8

Anonymous #5 4d

True, however the risk of surviving a more common car crash is higher than a less common plane crash. You’re more likely to die driving than flying, but you’re more likely to die *in* a plane crash. There’s also way more cars driven than planes flown, which people ignore. Things usually go wrong. Plane crashes still happen, and the average lives lost per crash on land vs sky, is higher in the sky. When something goes wrong with nuclear, and it will at some point, the results are catastrophic.

1

Anonymous OP 4d

You’re dumb. Fire is not a power source, it consumes fuel, it costs , it is a converter- heat is the energy used, which can be harnessed without direct use of fire. This is why most homes have furnaces and more modern homes electric heating, instead of fireplaces or wood stoves of old; and why gas stoves are slowly being phased out. Most flame related deaths occur due to cooking incidents or smoking incidents. Our direct use of fire has declined significantly because of its danger. Get therapy.

1

Anonymous #6 4d

“Get therapy” stop projecting. 😭😭😭 are you slow? The problems in the RBMK reactor in Chernobyl physically can’t happen again. At worst what will happen is it will melt into a radioactive pile of metal in the former reactor chamber and that’s it. Chernobyl released a massive amount of energy in an explosion in its last moments which can’t happen again. It would just fizzle out. And thank you for supporting my saying that fire is a hazardous material used in almost every home

1

Anonymous #4 4d

Chernobyl 2.0 was Fukushima tbh

1

Anonymous #5 4d

Can’t possibly get worse than Chernobyl imo

1

Anonymous #5 4d

I could be remembering incorrectly, but didn’t Fukushima have no casualties?

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4d

1 suspected from radiation/lung cancer

1

Anonymous #5 4d

Ah, my mistake.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4d

No worries, I think it was 4 years after the fact and then they only attributed it to Fukushima in like 2019

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4d

Quantifying the deaths caused by climate change due to Germany switching back to coal due Fukushima might be another story…

1