Not well liked
-
ivanafterall ☑️replied to [email protected] last edited by
Fine, she's radioactive toxic sludge, but at least she's here with me.
-
there never was a better occasion to write in gender neutral terms
-
"I don't say this lightly, but I think your partner is toxic."
-
So hot, though! She makes me feel warm, fuzzy, and a little dizzy when she's around.
-
[email protected]replied to ivanafterall ☑️ last edited by
“She may be a barrel of highly toxic waste, but ohmygod does she know her way around a penis.”
-
Including all nuclear power plant disasters, it still has far fewer deaths per gigawatt hour compared to everything except large scale solar installations (not personal rooftop solar, which is much higher due to falls). It's the money, not the safety, that's the problem.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
“Honey, you look radiant”
-
Safety per gigawatt hour sounds like it doesn't take into account what we do with all the radioactive waste of which there'd be much more of if nuclear power was scaled up drastically.
Could do with some more, especially more modern versions with less waste product and more efficient generation.
Could do with more solar, too.
But as you say... The Money
. -
All nuclear waste ever produced could be safely stored in less than a square mile (Plus a radius around that). The safety issues of it are greatly over exaggerated most of the time. The problem with that, is that storing nuclear waste safely is relatively (though not extremely) expensive.
-
Doesn't increasing the concentration of nuclear waste make it's effects much more dangerous?
And sorry to pick for more info, but what's the volume of waste in that one square mile?
-
Technically yes, but practically no for the first question. Properly stored nuclear waste has very minimal radiation leakage.
As for the second, it's complicated. The actual amount of radioactive waste is less than 10,000 cubic meters. There's quite a bit more than that of just water that has become toxic due to radiation, but the storage requirements of that are much lower. Here's a rough infographic: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-all-the-nuclear-waste-in-the-world/
Also, while The low level waste would still fit in a single square mile if you were restricted to that, using natural caves is a lot cheaper and easier than building tanks, so it's not exactly a realistic solution.
-
How do you know that? There are no reliable figures on the Chernobyl deaths because there was and is a massive ongoing cover-up. Same goes for Fukushima, Windscale and whatever the Soviets managed to sweep under the rug. Until you come up with some actually reliable figures, I suggest you stop repeating this obvious propaganda talking point
-
That's a great idea actually. I suggest we just deliver a barrel of the stuff to every nuke fanboy on here.
-
How else is Lemmy going to mine their data that they are male?
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Heres me thinking that the guy thinks/knows nuclear energy is better than other sources, but no one else likes it...
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Oh lord what have I done? Roxy Carol is a toxic waste barrel.
-
Thanks for the detailed reply.
So basically it's as safe as you trust the fail rate to be. Which isn't super risky, provided you can trust your construction.
-
Additionaly, almost everyone likes to take a NIMBY stance on storing nuclear waste. As a result, power plants tend to store more nuclear waste on site than was ever really intended, since they have no place else to go with it. So, because the public and politicians won't accept the realities of the situation, nuclear waste is currently being stored in lots of our "back yards."
