Well, most of the time you would be right indeed. Uranium fuel rods are solid. But in a molten-salt reactor the fissile material is actually dissolved in molten salt, so it is a solution!
Nope, they’re less expensive too because they don’t need to operate at high pressures like PWRs, so they don’t need a whole containment structure around it to keep the pressure in and they are more efficient because they can run at higher temperatures.
Research is expensive, but once that’s done (which we are nearing), the life cycle costs are lower with increased efficiency.
It’s also now more expensive than renewables. And it has always been less safe. There is literally no reason to build nuclear anymore. Renewables is the way to go. Cheaper, safer, makes Europe energy-independent, and also much better for the environment.
If 62 Dam’s breaking aren’t a direct consequence of sino and Soviet engineers installing dams to generate hydroelectric power because irresponsible engineers didn’t do the proper math to make functional safe dams and accidentally got 130k to 260k Chinese drowned…
Then how is it a valid argument that nuclear power isn’t safe due to the same mistakes by the engineers who failed to properly safeguard fukishima or Chernobyl or three mile island and accidently killed about 4000 Japanese, Ukrainans and Americans. .
That 4.000 death number is only from liquidators alone aka frontline workers with the most radiation exposure. It doesn’t take into account the excess death rate from people dying of cancer in the long run due to environmental radiation from the disaster where deaths could go into the tens of thousands. Like your numbers are absolute bullshit.
Have you read the paper you are presenting. It has no sourced facts. The only thing it says is based on studies from xyz but it does not list them or cite them. It also states that both the WHO and IAEA are part of a massive transnational conspiracy… Id call this ticktok slop if it was in video form instead of paragraph.
Right? So now we’re comparing Soviet weapons labs to power generation. Okay fine, I’ll play ball.
Casualties
270,000-500,000+ affected
. 10,000–12,000 evacuated
. At least 200 people died of radiation sickness,
unknown estimated future death toll from radiation induced illness.
66 diagnosed cases of chronic radiation syndrome
that’s 266+ dead and another 25 to 100 likely from long term exposure and contamination casualties over the next century.
Ha, so nuclear is so bad, we have to compare it to the petrochemical industry, which is the most polluting on earth? That says a lot, but not the way you’d probably like
More like 10k to 50k long term deaths due to effects of radiation exposure like cancer. Cancer rates among those affected by radiation are way higher than you assume.
Nuclear is not a solution, evidence 836382.
L take…
Well, most of the time you would be right indeed. Uranium fuel rods are solid. But in a molten-salt reactor the fissile material is actually dissolved in molten salt, so it is a solution!
The more you know!
One problem less of … 12? While being even more expensive (Problem Nr. 4).
Nope, they’re less expensive too because they don’t need to operate at high pressures like PWRs, so they don’t need a whole containment structure around it to keep the pressure in and they are more efficient because they can run at higher temperatures.
Research is expensive, but once that’s done (which we are nearing), the life cycle costs are lower with increased efficiency.
It’s also now more expensive than renewables. And it has always been less safe. There is literally no reason to build nuclear anymore. Renewables is the way to go. Cheaper, safer, makes Europe energy-independent, and also much better for the environment.
You are patiently incorrect nuclear has in total killed approximately 4,000 people over the last hundred year period.
Renewables have killed closer to 180,000.
You can look it up. This is a direct apples to apples comparison. Chernobyl vs a couple of dam failures.
Dams braking arent a direct consequence of renewables, but a flaw of the engineering. Also your argument bears no merit against wind and solar.
Your comment is deeply dishonest and bad faith.
Whoosh.
If 62 Dam’s breaking aren’t a direct consequence of sino and Soviet engineers installing dams to generate hydroelectric power because irresponsible engineers didn’t do the proper math to make functional safe dams and accidentally got 130k to 260k Chinese drowned…
Then how is it a valid argument that nuclear power isn’t safe due to the same mistakes by the engineers who failed to properly safeguard fukishima or Chernobyl or three mile island and accidently killed about 4000 Japanese, Ukrainans and Americans. .
That 4.000 death number is only from liquidators alone aka frontline workers with the most radiation exposure. It doesn’t take into account the excess death rate from people dying of cancer in the long run due to environmental radiation from the disaster where deaths could go into the tens of thousands. Like your numbers are absolute bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster
provide a source for your claimed excess deaths https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2889503/
holy shit. I did. If you are going to be arguing in bad faith then it’s pointless
Then hopefully you dont ignore this one too https://www.ippnw.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/IPPNW-Germany-Health-Effects-of-Chernobyl-20-years-after-the-reactor-catastrophe.pdf
Here they say “50k to 100k long term deaths”
Have you read the paper you are presenting. It has no sourced facts. The only thing it says is based on studies from xyz but it does not list them or cite them. It also states that both the WHO and IAEA are part of a massive transnational conspiracy… Id call this ticktok slop if it was in video form instead of paragraph.
Your comment is not correct.
From Chernobyl alone, and only in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, and only from cancer, there have been 27’000 deaths. http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/4704112149/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated
Then there’s all of the other bullshit. 270’000 people irradiated in this accident alone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster
Then there’s all of the nice little things like the literal mafia dumping nuclear waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_'Ndrangheta
Or dumping it into the oceans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste
Or Germany putting nuclear waste into plain metal barrels and putting them into a salt mine. Since metal and salt mix so well. https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-leaking-nuclear-waste-dump/video-69502364
Clearly one braking dam is an argument against wind turbines and solar panels. Oh the horror and deaths of free rooftop electricity to power ACs.
How many times am I going to hear about Chernobyl or Three Mile Island?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster
Right? So now we’re comparing Soviet weapons labs to power generation. Okay fine, I’ll play ball.
Casualties 270,000-500,000+ affected . 10,000–12,000 evacuated . At least 200 people died of radiation sickness, unknown estimated future death toll from radiation induced illness. 66 diagnosed cases of chronic radiation syndrome
that’s 266+ dead and another 25 to 100 likely from long term exposure and contamination casualties over the next century.
How many die each day from petrochemical fumes?
Ha, so nuclear is so bad, we have to compare it to the petrochemical industry, which is the most polluting on earth? That says a lot, but not the way you’d probably like
do they still teach reading comprehension in schools?
More like 10k to 50k long term deaths due to effects of radiation exposure like cancer. Cancer rates among those affected by radiation are way higher than you assume.
Until you realize that a water dam is very different from a solar panel.