World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Nuclear power only has to go wrong once so why risk it?
Because it's still the second safest energy source, very close behind solar. And about 10 years ago, before heavy investment in renewables, it was the safest.
This is like being afraid of airplanes because things only have to go wrong once for hundreds to die.
Edit: Here is the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022.
In what ways are hydro and wind unsafe?
Regarding hydro, the ecological effects upon the area flooded, the impact on migration of species, and risk of poorly designed and maintained dams needs to be considered. Wind? I'm guessing the impact on airborne wildlife - only thing I can think of.
Don't know, you'd have to ask the experts; what I do know is that the data shows nuclear is safer than wind and much safer than hydro.
I'm on mobile right now so it's convenient to find and post it, but if you want you can scroll my profile and you should some older comments with the data and sources.
There are reasonable and cost-effective alternatives to nuclear, to planes in many cases not so much. Also a plane crash doesn't leave whole towns uninhabitable for centuries or needs special places to store burned fuel
Again, this is baseless, unscientific, fear mongering. Nuclear is the second safest energy source, not far from solar. And still far safer than for ex. hydro, which destroys environments, and in that case it's not an "if".
Honestly,I feel like I'm back in like 2005 arguing against pro-oil people; in this case it's about renewables, but the arguments are still unscientific and usually based around "But tHe ecOnOMy".
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Edit: Here is the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022.
"Safest", that's why we need to think generations ahead to make signs that make clear forever that whatever is behind it shouldn't be touched.
I feel the same, first pro-oil and now pro-nuclear.
We have safer and cheaper regenerative options and it's about damn time we utilise them.
No, you have one safer option (solar), and just barely. And again, that is after a decade of heavy investment and development. The data doesn't lie. You can't just just throw out science and data when it doesn't serve you. Stop spreading BS. You are quite literally spreading misinformation.
Where will you put the nuclear waste? Germany doesn't even have the concept of a plan where to put theirs, they are currently keeping it
a) in a corroding salt mine, that is currently leaking water and will poison the entire area's ground water within 20 years, so it'll have to be dug up again, which will cost many billions b) in above ground 'temporary' holding facilities c) shipping it off to other countries
None of this is sustainable. Until the waste problem is solved, we shouldn't even think about building out nuclear.
It has already been solved, and a search should tell you all about it.
I'm still on mobile, so sharing links is still a pain, but a few key things:
Nuclear waste is produced quite slowly, so whatever cost you associate with storage is over a large period of time; we have the technology to build centrals that can use that waste to produce more energy, reducing waste even further.
No, it's not. There are ways to recycle parts of the fuel rods, true, but not the thousands of tons of contaminated material that inevitably gather during operations and end-of-life of a reactor. You don't honestly think that the only dangerous waste are spend fuel rods?
And yes, the very problem is that storage needs to take place over geologic timescales. I can't guarantee that our government will exist 20 years from now, much less 2000. Waste storage so far was managed so corruptly and incompetently that it is already failing after 50 years. Forgive me if I have little faith whenever someone claims that they'll just dig a hole and forget about it for a few millennia. The waste sites need maintenance, and if that ever ends might poison a region's ground water in perpetuity.
The materials you mention are classified as "low level waste", and they are "materials which contain small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactivity", and they actually make up 94% of waste in the Uk, but according to this article, it's 95%.
96% of spent nuclear fuel is Uranium, which can be reused.
Purely anecdotal; here's a different anecdote.
Here's is also a National Geographic article about this topic, and here is another.
Here is also the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022. You'll notice that after heavy R&D in renewables, nuclear is still the second safest; with all top three being really close, but hydro being a far 4th.
Please stop with the fear based, anti-scientific, rhetoric. I shouldn't feel like I'm arguing with climate deniers or pro oilers when talking with supposed environmentalists. Which reminds of the reason why this is so important: renewables alone still can't meet the energy demand without the assistance of fossil fuels, and the energy requirements keep rising:
"Clean sources of generation are set to cover all of the world’s additional electricity demand over the next three years" - they are accounting for nuclear, but nevertheless: "Low-emissions sources are expected to account for almost half of the world’s electricity generation by 2026".
Almost half, by 2026, accounting for nuclear. And we are still getting warmer.
There are both much safer (than Chernobyl or Fukushima or whatever) reactor models and fast-neutron reactors that can reduce the amount of spent fuel to be stored.
About reasonable and cost-effective alternatives - with bigger storage expenses and grid losses.
IMHO a good grid has at the same time a few nuclear stations (no, not those which will be inevitably shut down, but those which are being prolonged or replaced as the time passes), a huge amount of renewable sources, storage to alleviate spikes\falls of said renewable sources and backup coal stations.
And German grid is connected to a few others, so that they themselves have gotten rid of nuclear energy doesn't matter much, with unified grids.
Yeah no, you cannot compare nuclear Fallout to airplanes flying down. At least Not from a risk Assessment and Management Level. From the nuclear Fallout you cannot prepare against it, when it Happens you are fucked (AS a country). From a airplane crashing you can prepare against that, as the severity aint that Bad regardless who sits inside (be it President, chancellor, CEO, other important person), for a functioning society its not that important as there are other people taking over that Helm. But when nuclear Fallout Happens, your whole people will fall ill to it, ceasing your society to exist. So it is only proper risk mitigation to end the use of all nuclear plants.
How would using nuclear as a source of energy (not weapons) result in a nuclear fallout, exactly? A nuclear fallout would result of nuclear superpowers (countries that possess nuclear warheads) initiating a nuclear war; meaning there would be nuclear warheads flying and detonating all over the world. There's no reason a nuclear fallout would result from using fission as an energy source.
Great Job dissecting my comment.
Sure, you are right about the nuclear Fallout part, but a nuclear Catastrophe (or incident) like Fukushima, Chernobyl Happens, has the Same issue. You dont have any risk mitigation strategy available at large against it.
Because in many cases the risks are much more manageable than the risks associated with any meaningful alternatives.
Nuclear power isn't good nor bad, it's one of many options, each of which may be suitable in a given circumstance.
The costs of safely decommissioning and dismantling nuclear power plants are immense and are borne by taxpayers. In addition, there are high insurance premiums for operators. Renewable energies, on the other hand, are becoming increasingly affordable and make us less dependent on fossil fuels and their price fluctuations.
The future belongs to renewable energies. With them, we can ensure a safe, clean, and sustainable energy supply for generations to come. Nuclear power is a thing of the past.
Would you like me to combine these options into a single statement, or perhaps focus on a specific aspect of the arguments? For example, we could emphasize the economic benefits of renewable energy, or the environmental impact of nuclear power.
Most of the benefits and drawbacks you mention only became a reality after a decade of heavy focus and investment on renewables, with no similar focus on nuclear. It could be argued that if the same investment and focused had been applied to it, then none of those arguments would be true. In fact, back then those were the same arguments used against renewables.
In other words, the arguments of "but money, and look at the economy" are absolute shit, and they are the reason we spent so long on oil. The facts it's now used in favor of renewables and to shut down discussion of other alternatives is quite ironic.
Edit: To add, as I've mentioned somewhere else:
"Low-emissions sources are expected to account for almost half of the world’s electricity generation by 2026."
That's half, by 2026, and they are accounting for nuclear. That means the other 50% will still be fossil fuels. Meanwhile, the planet is getting warmer, some places are going underwater, and we are getting extreme weather events more and more frequently. "But-but, the economy!"