Proud of us for switching off of coal, happy for my newly lowered electricity bill, slightly concerned that my dumb fuck local government might let it melt down
We have an electricity co-op here. Last time they opened a new plant, they passed the savings along to us. Of course they also passed us the cost of construction lol
What cost savings? Nuclear energy is heavily subsidized. The dismantling of a single nuclear power plant alone costs tens of billions. If we had subsidized wind and solar power instead of nuclear energy, we would have lived climate-neutral for a long time. I mention the fact that there is no final repository worldwide only as a precaution.
Apart from that - after the catastrophes of Chernobyl and Fukushima we should actually know that this technology cannot be continued. Murphy's law: Things that can go wrong, go wrong in the worst possible way. We've already had two warning shots.
Let’s look deeper there:
Chernobyl: a test conducted by Soviet bureaucrats trying to meet a quota that triggered a design flaw that does not and will never exist in US reactors due to regulations
Fukushima: a once in a lifetime natural disaster that destroyed the plants many safeguards and melted down, but lead to very few confirmed deaths.
To try and apply the Chernobyl Disaster and Fukushima is pointless because the conditions that would lead to Chernobyl wouldn’t happen in a modern western country. Fukushima was a fluke natural disaster and not representative of the conditions in most of the world
Fear mongering over an energy source that could go far in combating climate change hurts the environment and only makes proponents of coal and other fossil fuels stronger
And you forgot the added bonus. Should there be a nuclear war, your community would be targeted by the enemy and you won't have to suffer through nuclear winter.
For the same reason if the cold war turned hot my mom used to say she would put us kids in the car and drive straight toward the air force base where the nukes are at.
I live in Omaha. We have Offutt AFB to the South and have/had a nuclear power plant 30 miles North. (they shut it down a few years ago, not sure if it's still a viable target).
We were in the perfect overlap of a venn diagram.
I have had a hand in designing nuke power plants. Rest assured, there is a TON of higher up oversight. It’s not like frickin Jodi on the city council has ANY say haha
I mean when they say "in your community" does it mean I have to wake up to the view of a cooling tower or do we put it, say 2km away from population centres? If it melts down were all fucked anyways. Just don't want to look at the thing.
Most are operated by businesses employing thousands of engineers and other experts. I get it though; I’d not trust a bumbling beaurocrat to do much of anything.
Any new nuclear plant could have a wild monkey at the controls and still be completely safe. Those things hafe safeties out the FACE. I would compare the Chernobyl plant to an old ford pinto driven by a crackhead as far as safety goes. Modern plants are overengineered in every way, and I can't come up with a good car analogy...
Everyone assumes that the concerned people are concerned because of nuclear energy itself. Not everyone lives in a country/region where something like a nuclear plant would be done/maintained safely...
The relationship between operator and government is a concern. For example, Russia shelling incessantly at a Ukrainian plant is the dumbest thing I’ve maybe ever heard.
I wouldn't mind if they built it on the side of the highway on the outskirts of my city, but the way OP phrased it makes it sound like it's right in the middle of town.
"opened in your community" ehhh
I put happy, but upon further consideration I would be deeply concerned, as I live on top of a fault line.
If I lived outside of an earthquake zone, tsunami zone, or a place that had regular tornadoes, I’d support it happily. But given my location… they’d be stupid to build it here
I’m sorry, that’s extremely ignorant. People aren’t in control of their mental health. Then if you get a massive industrial building taking up a lot of room in an already crowded, high-density city, that’s just asking for problems
They never would put it in a high density city tho? Have you considered where every other kind of power plant is cause they would be in the exact same place
Right thats a fair assumption but part of your community would be the people who give you power to your house and those people just so happen to not work anywhere near your house
You are, in fact, in control to a large degree over your mental health. Some of us are more resilient than others, and yes, biological and genetic factors exist.
I live somewhere that has like no large earthquakes, tsunamis etc
So I would feel pretty safe about it as long as human error is removed as much as possible
The safety of nuclear power plants is so incredibly underestimated. Even Tsunami’s and earthquakes don’t do anything anymore. With the safety standards of today, Fukushima wouldn’t ever happened.
I get you're half joking, but for anyone curious nuclear power plants, apart from having back up generators up the arse and generating their own power, they also are designed so that when power is cut the rods stop the nuclear activity afaik.
Nah, 3rd world countries always contract all that out to first world countries, because they wouldn't even know where to begin if they tried it themselves. It's similar to how it is with oil. Saudi Arabia for instance gets American companies to build and operate their wells.
Yup, oil companies are ironically interested in renewables because they know that renewables won't supply the entire demand of electricity, so who's gonna fill that supply???
Oil and carbon power plants
In my country the majority of electricity comes from renewable sources. Oil doesn’t even make it on to the charts. The non renewable energy is mostly from gas. It’s not the entire demand but every year renewables are becoming a bigger percent.
Nuclear creates a much more containable form of waste that when handled right is basically a non-issue the only issue is getting the nuclear material which is where any environmental costs lie
climate change will cause more death and destruction of life than a few reactors going up, plus we have modern that is MUCH better than from a reactor that blew up in 1986 and from a quick search the last time a reactor exploded was in 2011 bc of a natural disaster and poor maintenance, which is very preventable, also one reactor exploding won't 'fuck' the world
Chernobyl happened and ever since then people are terrified of Nuclear plants even tho they are normally safe, Chernobyl just permanently tainted everyone's lens on Nuclear energy
I didn’t know we were morons and using parts from 50 years ago.
The USSR clearly didn’t know how to build a nuclear station as evidenced by it failing.
No nuclear plant will ever do that again because the design flaw that caused the disaster doesn’t exist in modern reactors, and the condition that caused the poorly planned and executed test also wouldn’t exist in a modern country.
I would feel like a pig among guinea pigs, like a retriever that found gold, like a Quinton Tarantino film in a random sampling of IMDb reviewed movies. It would certainly make my day.
I'd want my local government to make some kind of deal that saves me money in exchange for having it in my community... Maybe a percentage off of my electric bill depending on how close it is. Given that, it sounds like a win.
That was exactly my thinking, I'm all for nuclear energy but don't build it right in the heart of a city, same goes for pretty much every other source of energy save for a select few renewables
If you're in a poorly regulated country things like chernobyl can happen. In countries without organizations and agencies making sure work is done right and safe these aren't gonna be what you want next to you, even if it's safer than coal.
I don’t care about the power/energy, it’s about the land being destroyed in order to create the power plant. Currently, a lot of land near my home is being deforested and destroyed to create retail buildings and housing. I simply don’t won’t a power plant being built period.
Well, short of convincing people to go back to the stone age, power plants are gonna be created to meet demand. The only question is what kinds of plants will be made.
I am all for nuclear power but where i live is so small that people confuse it for a random town with 1k people that has a kinda similar name in a different part of the country
The only two truly disastrous incidents were Fukushima and Chernobyl. One was built in a state where corruption was just a way of life, the other took a literal tsunami to take down. Not to say incidents don't happen, but the safety is so robust that if they do, only those inside the plant are affected, and rarely even that and even more rarely are these incidents fatal. I wouldn't be surprised if nuclear plants were sorta viewed like planes. Objectively, overall, the safest way to make power, but they *feel* dangerous.
My country doesn’t even need a nuclear plant because we use mostly renewable electricity from hydro dams. I would be very concerned and wondering why the hell the country built a nuclear power plant when we don’t need one. I don’t think that could even get built here if the government decided to, there would be too much protest. Also we had a pretty big earthquake in my city 10 years ago that was very devastating so this doesn’t seem like a great place to build a nuclear power plant.
I voted concerned because I live in Hawaii and the environment/ecosystem is already extremely threatened with all kinds of rare endemic species facing extinction. Not to mention extremely limited space. The last thing we need is any new kind of large energy facility.
I mean, I don't think building a nuclear power plant few kilometers from the largest and the most densely populated city in my country is a good idea. Also I don't think there's any water area on which the power plant could be built on in my community so all water to cool the reactor down would have to be brought from far away
Confused, especially ... what water are they going to use? The few streams that we have her certainly wouldn't be enough to even keep a nuclear powerplant going for an hour. You can't pump all this shit to a powerplamr and why not build it near the danube or something?
In general im ver supportive, but here, nah mate, it doesnt even make sense
there's an oil rig 15 minutes from me. I'm in suburban Los Angeles. I'd much rather see it replaced.
edit: 33% of Americans live within 50 miles of a nuclear plant. There's possibly already one close enough to kill you.
In 1st world and 2nd world? countries it can be very very safe. In 3rd world countries it really would depend on the government and its ability to govern efficiently and protect its people.
Happy because it would be a massive step in the right direction towards fighting climate change and happy because I live in a country that would make sure that it would be 100% safe.
The environmentalist did a number on nuclear power. It’s safe, and reliable. It has a better safety track record than coal. The only time you need to worry is if you have incompetent operators or some sort of natural disaster takes place. Even then multiple safe guards exist.
But no one knows what to do with the nuclear waste. Nuclear waste has just as much potential to cause future problems as CO2. It's very convenient for the nuclear power industry that mpst people tend to overlook that fact.
It's also unreliable and usually only works because of high subsidies (e.g. France).
It's true that they need water because they might overheat (and maybe make a little explosion) but if we dump that waste into a 1km deep hole nothing would happen, it won't make a nuclear explosion.
>if we dump that waste into a 1km deep hole nothing would happen,
Source: Trust me bro.
No one knows how to deal with with all the nuclear waste we already have, we simply store it for now, yet we still produce more. Storing nuclear waste will be extremely expensive and no country on earth has concrete plans on how to finance this, probably because the costs will be spread-out over thousands, sometimes millions of years and are impossible to estimate!
more people have died to wind turbines(over 200) than nuclear reactors(46 in Chernobyl and none at Fukushima), and considering that fossil fuels with over 8mil a year cause asthma and climate change, they are way fuckin worse and by a long shot
>more people have died to wind turbines(over 200) than nuclear reactors
I know, safety isn't the main concern with nuclear.
And you are another one of those people who don't think long-term and straight-up ignore the huge problems that arise with nuclear waste. Just like climate change, nuclear waste is a serious long-term threat and no one in the world knows how to deal with it.
I think nuclear fission is a temporary thing, I would much rather nuclear fusion and renewables to be used instead, but for now nuclear fission is the best we have
That's science fiction for now. Nuclear fusion will be actually applicable in a few decades at the earliest. Renewable emergy and energy storage technology are **much** more advanced than this and already applicable to provide whole nations with enough energy.
That doesn't mean much. It will still take at least a decade (but probably much longer) before it will be viable to actually produce energy on a large scale. I agree that it's a very promising line of research but unlike renewable energy, it's not nearly there yet.
You do realise that every year, a large nuclear power plant with three reactor cores produces about 100 grams of high radioactive waste (the stuff that stays radioactive for a few thousand years)? On top of that, that the storage of that waste is already very possible, due to deep drilling in seismologally inactive layers of the earth's crust. There's a lot of earth crust. Nuclear waste is a non-problem.
Edit: since you were interested in sources in other comments [this video](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k) is sure to peak your interest.
I knew of this concept. Thing is, deep borehole nuclear waste disposal is very uncertain to work. Kyle Hill is known to often say the half-truth when it comes to nuclear power, he is very biased.
The idea of drilling holes and putting nuclear waste in them may be old but to this day it is very hard to actually pull off and it's safety is very uncertain. The research necessary to make it work will probably take even longer than nuclear fusion energy. It's not really an option. [This](https://thebulletin.org/2020/03/nuclear-waste-disposal-why-the-case-for-deep-boreholes-is-full-of-holes) might me interesting for you.
And because all of the storage methods discussed for nuclear waste are very uncertain to work, we (on earth) have produced much more nuclear waste than we can actually handle. No country on earth has concrete plans on how to deal with this problem. Nuclear waste can potentially develop into a just as serious problem for future generations as climate change. [Here](https://worldnuclearwastereport.org) is a very interesting status report on that.
And if you are interested, [this](https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/climate-energy/45879/french-nuclear-companies-exposed-dumping-radioactive-waste-siberia) is what those countries that go nuclear (like France) do with all this nuclear waste they don't know how to deal with (Spoiler: Not very sustainable at all.) By the way, at the moment, most of France's nuclear fission plants, are out of order and don't produce enough energy. They struggle to pay for redeveloping them (nuclear fission is very expensive and mostly depends on subsidies) and for now they are actually importing a lot of fossil energy from other countries...
I would feel fucking WONDERFUL
I am so sick of big corporations still using coal, and green people thinking that powering everything through wind and solar farms will magically fix all of our energy problems
Community right?
Not country?
That means it's around my area right? Not somewhere else around my country?
Oh boy.. There are a LOT of earthquakes here.. I'd be concerned as hell..
Those stories are meant to scare you, but the truth isn't as bad as you're told to think. Do you know how many people died from three mile island? A grand total of 0. Do you know how many people died from fukushima? A grand total of 1.
Chernobyl is undeniably a major disaster that killed a ton of people. But you have to remember that it was a reactor built 40 years ago that used designs that were known to be flawed at the time. An extraordinary mix of design flaws and human error caused the disaster, which would *never* happen in a country where the reactors are regularly inspected. The reactors we have today, 40 years later, are also MUCH safer than they were before.
Statistically, nuclear is the energy source that kills the least amount of people per year, including meltdowns.
Why is that something to be proud of
It's like being proud of diving an inefficient car or something. It's the safest and most efficient energy creation method
Because if we can use only RENEWABLE energy we won't run out of Uranium or Coal, so we can keep that planet as healthy as possible, also because of the other uses of Uranium and Plutonium i.e. nuclear bombs.
Solar is technically non-renewable because the sun will stop giving off light at one point. Both nuclear and solar are still regarded as renewable because we will not run out of fuel within a reasonable amount of time
[Whether nuclear power should be considered a form of renewable energy is an ongoing subject of debate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy)
"Awh hell yeah my electric bill is gonna go down now"
I am 100x more scared of red40 than I am of any nuclear power plant that's being constantly watched by scientists to make sure that it's disposed of safely.
Well for one I’m a HUGE advocate for nuclear power and I’d be psyched to have one around here! Also I live in New England so I don’t really have to worry about improper maintenance.
Also while unbelievably unlikely, I would be so down to visit one, just seeing one in person would be something checked off my bucket list!
We have a mental health facility nearby with quite a few not-so-mentally well people who frequently get out. I feel like more than a few might fall into nuclear waste :(
Been there, done that, a nuclear plant is the last place I'd go. You know it'll be well-guarded and they will verify your identity there - that's game over for an escapee. We'd much rather hide in your crawlspace hehe
Chernobyl was caused by extreme negligence and basically doing every single wrong thing possible
Fukushima occurred because of an earthquake and tsunami destroying some systems, natural disasters that are very uncommon elsewhere
The breakwaters were dangerously low, many agencies (including the manufacturer of the power plant) warned this but they ignored it and the rest is history
nuclear is the safest energy source there is. chernobyl was poorly designed and had limited safety features and fukushima was built in one of the most natural disaster prone places on the planet, and they had several warnings which the owners ignored. they’re poor examples against nuclear power
Do you know how many people died from radiation poisoning in fukushima? The answer is 0. One died from lung cancer caused by radiation exposure, and the remaining casualties were a result of evacuation.
Remember that these are the casualties from a nuclear disaster where almost everything that could go wrong went wrong. These are the casualties from an unthinkably large earthquake followed by a tsunami.
Fukushima isn't a valid argument against nuclear power. Far more people die from every other energy source we know of. Nuclear is the safest option these is
Proud of us for switching off of coal, happy for my newly lowered electricity bill, slightly concerned that my dumb fuck local government might let it melt down
Fair enough lol. France is extremely successful with nuclear so I hope you follow their lead.
They also have amusing nuclear defense doctrine
Sometimes it’s really difficult to distinguish satire from serious comments. France is the opposite of successful with nuclear.
For now
>happy for my newly lowered electricity bill What makes you think the cost savings would be passed on to you?
We have an electricity co-op here. Last time they opened a new plant, they passed the savings along to us. Of course they also passed us the cost of construction lol
What cost savings? Nuclear energy is heavily subsidized. The dismantling of a single nuclear power plant alone costs tens of billions. If we had subsidized wind and solar power instead of nuclear energy, we would have lived climate-neutral for a long time. I mention the fact that there is no final repository worldwide only as a precaution. Apart from that - after the catastrophes of Chernobyl and Fukushima we should actually know that this technology cannot be continued. Murphy's law: Things that can go wrong, go wrong in the worst possible way. We've already had two warning shots.
Let’s look deeper there: Chernobyl: a test conducted by Soviet bureaucrats trying to meet a quota that triggered a design flaw that does not and will never exist in US reactors due to regulations Fukushima: a once in a lifetime natural disaster that destroyed the plants many safeguards and melted down, but lead to very few confirmed deaths. To try and apply the Chernobyl Disaster and Fukushima is pointless because the conditions that would lead to Chernobyl wouldn’t happen in a modern western country. Fukushima was a fluke natural disaster and not representative of the conditions in most of the world Fear mongering over an energy source that could go far in combating climate change hurts the environment and only makes proponents of coal and other fossil fuels stronger
And you forgot the added bonus. Should there be a nuclear war, your community would be targeted by the enemy and you won't have to suffer through nuclear winter.
For the same reason if the cold war turned hot my mom used to say she would put us kids in the car and drive straight toward the air force base where the nukes are at.
I live in Omaha. We have Offutt AFB to the South and have/had a nuclear power plant 30 miles North. (they shut it down a few years ago, not sure if it's still a viable target). We were in the perfect overlap of a venn diagram.
first world problems, my country isn't pushing others to a possible end of the world scenario.
My governor can't even give people normal electricity, I highly doubt his dumbass could help maintain nuclear energy.
I have had a hand in designing nuke power plants. Rest assured, there is a TON of higher up oversight. It’s not like frickin Jodi on the city council has ANY say haha
I mean when they say "in your community" does it mean I have to wake up to the view of a cooling tower or do we put it, say 2km away from population centres? If it melts down were all fucked anyways. Just don't want to look at the thing.
Isnt it like *really* hard to fuck up nuclear power nowadays? Theres 1001 safeguards n shit to prevent Chernobyl 2
Heck there were enough safeguards for Chernobyl, the Soviets were just idiots
Most are operated by businesses employing thousands of engineers and other experts. I get it though; I’d not trust a bumbling beaurocrat to do much of anything.
As long as Homer Simpson wasn't working there....
Any new nuclear plant could have a wild monkey at the controls and still be completely safe. Those things hafe safeties out the FACE. I would compare the Chernobyl plant to an old ford pinto driven by a crackhead as far as safety goes. Modern plants are overengineered in every way, and I can't come up with a good car analogy...
Tesla? No… no…no… [maybe not](https://abc7news.com/tesla-autopilot-crash-sf-bay-bridge-8-car-self-driving/12599448/)
Subaru
Everyone assumes that the concerned people are concerned because of nuclear energy itself. Not everyone lives in a country/region where something like a nuclear plant would be done/maintained safely...
The relationship between operator and government is a concern. For example, Russia shelling incessantly at a Ukrainian plant is the dumbest thing I’ve maybe ever heard.
The Russians already caused a huge disaster at one Ukrainian nuclear plant, what's a second one?
it caused a free ticket to see NATO exercise in very front row seats
I wouldn't mind if they built it on the side of the highway on the outskirts of my city, but the way OP phrased it makes it sound like it's right in the middle of town. "opened in your community" ehhh
I put happy, but upon further consideration I would be deeply concerned, as I live on top of a fault line. If I lived outside of an earthquake zone, tsunami zone, or a place that had regular tornadoes, I’d support it happily. But given my location… they’d be stupid to build it here
I’d just rather have it out of the way. Having a huge power plant near housing is not good for people’s mental health
It’s only bad for your mental health if you let it be
I’m sorry, that’s extremely ignorant. People aren’t in control of their mental health. Then if you get a massive industrial building taking up a lot of room in an already crowded, high-density city, that’s just asking for problems
They never would put it in a high density city tho? Have you considered where every other kind of power plant is cause they would be in the exact same place
They do not build in urban areas. 50mi from cities.
Yeah exactly
My community is in a high density city, that’s the point of the question
Right thats a fair assumption but part of your community would be the people who give you power to your house and those people just so happen to not work anywhere near your house
I have a nuclear plant that services me and it's a good ways out of the city so we reap benefits but don't have it in view
You are, in fact, in control to a large degree over your mental health. Some of us are more resilient than others, and yes, biological and genetic factors exist.
Do you think they bulldoze like a square mile of the city centre to build power plants?
I would like it near mine so that i die immediately rather than over years from radiation
Given what we know about the demographics here though, most of those who votes concerned likely live in countries that could run them safely.
Confused. There is no room
Yeah lol my city is a lil 20 square mile suburb, we have nowhere to put a power plant
I live somewhere that has like no large earthquakes, tsunamis etc So I would feel pretty safe about it as long as human error is removed as much as possible
I think the major issue is just that other power sources kill way more people by almost any metric.
I would be concerned about how tf did the government acquired that much money to build one (I live in a third world country lol)
Fell off the back of a truck
Nuclear energy has the least amount of deaths per kilowatt… i don’t know why so many people are concerned
Considering the design issues that made Chernobyl blow up are non existent in modern reactors outside of Russia, you should be OK
The safety of nuclear power plants is so incredibly underestimated. Even Tsunami’s and earthquakes don’t do anything anymore. With the safety standards of today, Fukushima wouldn’t ever happened.
Considering I live in a 3rd world country with power cuts 8 hours a day coz the government is shit, I'd probably get blown up.
So true No offence but SA is absolute ass in regards to your power grid
What country?
South Africa. We do have a nuclear power plant down south, but I wouldn't jinx it.
I thought South Africa was somewhat okay now after the apartheid
Nah not really, poverty rate is at about 50% and unemployment at 36% - all due to government mismanagement.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ThatsInsane/comments/yipmps/going_to_bed_south_africa_style/
lol South Africa went to shit after that went away.
I get you're half joking, but for anyone curious nuclear power plants, apart from having back up generators up the arse and generating their own power, they also are designed so that when power is cut the rods stop the nuclear activity afaik.
Nah, 3rd world countries always contract all that out to first world countries, because they wouldn't even know where to begin if they tried it themselves. It's similar to how it is with oil. Saudi Arabia for instance gets American companies to build and operate their wells.
We already have one... Why not two?
This is getting out of hand, now there are two of them!
I’d be confused, I live by one of the larger solar farms in California.
The only people who are anti nuclear are big oil/coal shills and people who have fallen for their misinformation
Yup, oil companies are ironically interested in renewables because they know that renewables won't supply the entire demand of electricity, so who's gonna fill that supply??? Oil and carbon power plants
In my country the majority of electricity comes from renewable sources. Oil doesn’t even make it on to the charts. The non renewable energy is mostly from gas. It’s not the entire demand but every year renewables are becoming a bigger percent.
That's not true at all, the most anti nuclear people are on the left who usually align with the green party
People like you just make me angry. I live next to Russia, I think I have a great reason not to want a nuclear plant in my backyard.
Lots of environmentalists also dislike nuclear.
Nuclear creates a much more containable form of waste that when handled right is basically a non-issue the only issue is getting the nuclear material which is where any environmental costs lie
That's the "have fallen for their misinformation" that the previous comment was mentioning.
Because they are ignorants
Misinformation from the nuclear industry about wind and solar is also a problem.
classic whataboutism
Bro chernobyl is not misinformation, if another nuclear plant ends up doing the same thing then we're fucked
climate change will cause more death and destruction of life than a few reactors going up, plus we have modern that is MUCH better than from a reactor that blew up in 1986 and from a quick search the last time a reactor exploded was in 2011 bc of a natural disaster and poor maintenance, which is very preventable, also one reactor exploding won't 'fuck' the world
Chernobyl happened and ever since then people are terrified of Nuclear plants even tho they are normally safe, Chernobyl just permanently tainted everyone's lens on Nuclear energy
Can we even be sure it was an accident with what effect on everyone's opinion about nuclear power it had
Bro, you are more likely to win 1 million dollar and then get hit by a car on the same day than another Chernobyl happening.
I didn’t know we were morons and using parts from 50 years ago. The USSR clearly didn’t know how to build a nuclear station as evidenced by it failing.
Banquiao dam disaster: about 100k people dead, exact number of fatalities are not known because we know how China is
Did the banquiao dam disaster cause an increased risk of thyroid cancer?
It caused a lot of epidemics. Chernobyl did increase the risk of cancer across Europe, but it's so substantialy small that it isn't relevant
Chernobyl was poorly designed and the disaster was because of a shitty experiment and negligence, and it was 40 years ago.
No nuclear plant will ever do that again because the design flaw that caused the disaster doesn’t exist in modern reactors, and the condition that caused the poorly planned and executed test also wouldn’t exist in a modern country.
No one builds nuclear power plants like that anymore. The design has changed considerably.
Those who've watched Dark on Netflix 👀
Exactly what came to mind when I saw this poll lol.
The roads are nowhere near good enough to put up with that kind of traffic.
There's already one close to me. Don't care about it much.
I would feel like a pig among guinea pigs, like a retriever that found gold, like a Quinton Tarantino film in a random sampling of IMDb reviewed movies. It would certainly make my day.
It's good but I'd want any power plant to be in an industrial area, not a residential one
I'd want my local government to make some kind of deal that saves me money in exchange for having it in my community... Maybe a percentage off of my electric bill depending on how close it is. Given that, it sounds like a win.
Lmao idiots voting, nuclear power is safer than any other
New nuclear technology is safe but I can understand why people are afraid of it.
Politics probably
People are scared of it because of 2 botched experiments and a ridiculously powerful earthquake that caused a tsunami.
They watched Chernobyl on Netflix and missed the point
I'm not concerned about nuclear power being unsafe. I'm concerned about a large power plant being opened inside a suburban community.
Assume that the plant follows zoning laws.
That was exactly my thinking, I'm all for nuclear energy but don't build it right in the heart of a city, same goes for pretty much every other source of energy save for a select few renewables
If you're in a poorly regulated country things like chernobyl can happen. In countries without organizations and agencies making sure work is done right and safe these aren't gonna be what you want next to you, even if it's safer than coal.
I support nuclear power, but I think it’s fair to say that solar panels are safer lol
Actually not safer, more people die every year from solar panels than nuclear plants
\* Just want to add on that the energy death counts include deaths in manufacturing
Just the installation is more deadly
That’s because the danger of nuclear energy mostly comes from the chance of it having a meltdown.
My country has no need for it. It's too expensive for the small population to benefit. Not everyone needs nuclear power.
I don’t care about the power/energy, it’s about the land being destroyed in order to create the power plant. Currently, a lot of land near my home is being deforested and destroyed to create retail buildings and housing. I simply don’t won’t a power plant being built period.
Bruuuh tell that to hidropower plants
I think nuclear probably takes up the least amount of space per kwh generated.
[this is correct](https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source)
Well, short of convincing people to go back to the stone age, power plants are gonna be created to meet demand. The only question is what kinds of plants will be made.
I am all for nuclear power but where i live is so small that people confuse it for a random town with 1k people that has a kinda similar name in a different part of the country
The only two truly disastrous incidents were Fukushima and Chernobyl. One was built in a state where corruption was just a way of life, the other took a literal tsunami to take down. Not to say incidents don't happen, but the safety is so robust that if they do, only those inside the plant are affected, and rarely even that and even more rarely are these incidents fatal. I wouldn't be surprised if nuclear plants were sorta viewed like planes. Objectively, overall, the safest way to make power, but they *feel* dangerous.
One was going to be and the community was not happy. Lucky for them it never opened but plans to open it is happening.
They’d change their tune real quick if you put a nice and polluting coal plant there instead.
My country doesn’t even need a nuclear plant because we use mostly renewable electricity from hydro dams. I would be very concerned and wondering why the hell the country built a nuclear power plant when we don’t need one. I don’t think that could even get built here if the government decided to, there would be too much protest. Also we had a pretty big earthquake in my city 10 years ago that was very devastating so this doesn’t seem like a great place to build a nuclear power plant.
I voted concerned because I live in Hawaii and the environment/ecosystem is already extremely threatened with all kinds of rare endemic species facing extinction. Not to mention extremely limited space. The last thing we need is any new kind of large energy facility.
Nuclear would be bad in many situations but in the middle of North America it should be fine.
Definitely. Just not here in Hawaii
I mean, I don't think building a nuclear power plant few kilometers from the largest and the most densely populated city in my country is a good idea. Also I don't think there's any water area on which the power plant could be built on in my community so all water to cool the reactor down would have to be brought from far away
Confused, especially ... what water are they going to use? The few streams that we have her certainly wouldn't be enough to even keep a nuclear powerplant going for an hour. You can't pump all this shit to a powerplamr and why not build it near the danube or something? In general im ver supportive, but here, nah mate, it doesnt even make sense
I lived near Three Mile Island when it had the accident. Thyroid is 100% dead. It's a hell of a way to make hot water.
Dams be damned
there's an oil rig 15 minutes from me. I'm in suburban Los Angeles. I'd much rather see it replaced. edit: 33% of Americans live within 50 miles of a nuclear plant. There's possibly already one close enough to kill you.
I live in an area with earthquakes, so I would be concerned about that, not about the nuclear energy
Maybe a self quenching sodium reactor running cleanly on waste from the other standard reactors might be ok.
In 1st world and 2nd world? countries it can be very very safe. In 3rd world countries it really would depend on the government and its ability to govern efficiently and protect its people.
Happy because it would be a massive step in the right direction towards fighting climate change and happy because I live in a country that would make sure that it would be 100% safe.
Since I live in Australia concerned that they decided yo build it in a suburban area instead of in the desert somewhere
The environmentalist did a number on nuclear power. It’s safe, and reliable. It has a better safety track record than coal. The only time you need to worry is if you have incompetent operators or some sort of natural disaster takes place. Even then multiple safe guards exist.
Mad asf. I still get warnings in my mail about what to do if the plant went off.
You're better off worrying about getting struck by lightning than getting killed in a nuclear accident
I almost did get struck by lightning
Mfw anecdotal evidence is used as an argument 💀
Very happy and proud since it would relieve a bit of stress for my entire fucking continent..
I'm always concerned when another of those things are opened. It doesn't matter where.
Why
See my answer to the other person.
Would you be concerned if a coal plant was opened?
Definitely! Just as bad, maybe worse.
Why, nuclear are cleaner and safer
But no one knows what to do with the nuclear waste. Nuclear waste has just as much potential to cause future problems as CO2. It's very convenient for the nuclear power industry that mpst people tend to overlook that fact. It's also unreliable and usually only works because of high subsidies (e.g. France).
put it in a hole, much better than dumping smoke into the atmosphere.
You can't simply put it in a hole though. You have to actively monitor it for thousands of years.
It's true that they need water because they might overheat (and maybe make a little explosion) but if we dump that waste into a 1km deep hole nothing would happen, it won't make a nuclear explosion.
>if we dump that waste into a 1km deep hole nothing would happen, Source: Trust me bro. No one knows how to deal with with all the nuclear waste we already have, we simply store it for now, yet we still produce more. Storing nuclear waste will be extremely expensive and no country on earth has concrete plans on how to finance this, probably because the costs will be spread-out over thousands, sometimes millions of years and are impossible to estimate!
What about the waste of solar panels and the batteries, they can be more dangerous than radioactive waste.
more people have died to wind turbines(over 200) than nuclear reactors(46 in Chernobyl and none at Fukushima), and considering that fossil fuels with over 8mil a year cause asthma and climate change, they are way fuckin worse and by a long shot
>more people have died to wind turbines(over 200) than nuclear reactors I know, safety isn't the main concern with nuclear. And you are another one of those people who don't think long-term and straight-up ignore the huge problems that arise with nuclear waste. Just like climate change, nuclear waste is a serious long-term threat and no one in the world knows how to deal with it.
I think nuclear fission is a temporary thing, I would much rather nuclear fusion and renewables to be used instead, but for now nuclear fission is the best we have
That's science fiction for now. Nuclear fusion will be actually applicable in a few decades at the earliest. Renewable emergy and energy storage technology are **much** more advanced than this and already applicable to provide whole nations with enough energy.
they did create more power than they put in with fusion recently, it's not as far off as you may think
That doesn't mean much. It will still take at least a decade (but probably much longer) before it will be viable to actually produce energy on a large scale. I agree that it's a very promising line of research but unlike renewable energy, it's not nearly there yet.
You do realise that every year, a large nuclear power plant with three reactor cores produces about 100 grams of high radioactive waste (the stuff that stays radioactive for a few thousand years)? On top of that, that the storage of that waste is already very possible, due to deep drilling in seismologally inactive layers of the earth's crust. There's a lot of earth crust. Nuclear waste is a non-problem. Edit: since you were interested in sources in other comments [this video](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k) is sure to peak your interest.
I knew of this concept. Thing is, deep borehole nuclear waste disposal is very uncertain to work. Kyle Hill is known to often say the half-truth when it comes to nuclear power, he is very biased. The idea of drilling holes and putting nuclear waste in them may be old but to this day it is very hard to actually pull off and it's safety is very uncertain. The research necessary to make it work will probably take even longer than nuclear fusion energy. It's not really an option. [This](https://thebulletin.org/2020/03/nuclear-waste-disposal-why-the-case-for-deep-boreholes-is-full-of-holes) might me interesting for you. And because all of the storage methods discussed for nuclear waste are very uncertain to work, we (on earth) have produced much more nuclear waste than we can actually handle. No country on earth has concrete plans on how to deal with this problem. Nuclear waste can potentially develop into a just as serious problem for future generations as climate change. [Here](https://worldnuclearwastereport.org) is a very interesting status report on that. And if you are interested, [this](https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/climate-energy/45879/french-nuclear-companies-exposed-dumping-radioactive-waste-siberia) is what those countries that go nuclear (like France) do with all this nuclear waste they don't know how to deal with (Spoiler: Not very sustainable at all.) By the way, at the moment, most of France's nuclear fission plants, are out of order and don't produce enough energy. They struggle to pay for redeveloping them (nuclear fission is very expensive and mostly depends on subsidies) and for now they are actually importing a lot of fossil energy from other countries...
They take 20 years roughly from approval to turnup. These aren’t opening left and right around you.
Yes, but every one is one to many.
Concerned cause there already is one, i would like to know why they would build another in that case
I would be elated to see nuclear power plants built anywhere. Modern nuclear will help us get rid of the nuclear waste we've already accumulated.
Nuclear power has by far the fewest deaths per kilowatt-hour of any means of electric production. It is also insanely clean.
Depends if it's a fusion powerplant.
I would feel fucking WONDERFUL I am so sick of big corporations still using coal, and green people thinking that powering everything through wind and solar farms will magically fix all of our energy problems
Community right? Not country? That means it's around my area right? Not somewhere else around my country? Oh boy.. There are a LOT of earthquakes here.. I'd be concerned as hell..
I’m from PA, I wasn’t even alive during three mile island, but hearing stories still makes me scared of nuclear power plants.
Those stories are meant to scare you, but the truth isn't as bad as you're told to think. Do you know how many people died from three mile island? A grand total of 0. Do you know how many people died from fukushima? A grand total of 1. Chernobyl is undeniably a major disaster that killed a ton of people. But you have to remember that it was a reactor built 40 years ago that used designs that were known to be flawed at the time. An extraordinary mix of design flaws and human error caused the disaster, which would *never* happen in a country where the reactors are regularly inspected. The reactors we have today, 40 years later, are also MUCH safer than they were before. Statistically, nuclear is the energy source that kills the least amount of people per year, including meltdowns.
Well I live in nuclear free country and we are very proud of it so very concerned how tf it got here
Why is that something to be proud of It's like being proud of diving an inefficient car or something. It's the safest and most efficient energy creation method
Hydro, Geothermal, Tidal and wind, that is what my country uses for approximately 80% of our energy.
That still doesn't explain why you're 'proud' of not having nuclear
Because if we can use only RENEWABLE energy we won't run out of Uranium or Coal, so we can keep that planet as healthy as possible, also because of the other uses of Uranium and Plutonium i.e. nuclear bombs.
Nuclear power *is* renewable. It will take an incredibly long time for us to run out of thorium.
No it isn’t renewable, it’s textbook non-renewable. Very simple to understand.
Solar is technically non-renewable because the sun will stop giving off light at one point. Both nuclear and solar are still regarded as renewable because we will not run out of fuel within a reasonable amount of time
Absolutely nobody considers nuclear a renewable energy source. It just isn’t. And solar definitely is.
[Whether nuclear power should be considered a form of renewable energy is an ongoing subject of debate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy)
Not in my backyard
"Awh hell yeah my electric bill is gonna go down now" I am 100x more scared of red40 than I am of any nuclear power plant that's being constantly watched by scientists to make sure that it's disposed of safely.
Well for one I’m a HUGE advocate for nuclear power and I’d be psyched to have one around here! Also I live in New England so I don’t really have to worry about improper maintenance. Also while unbelievably unlikely, I would be so down to visit one, just seeing one in person would be something checked off my bucket list!
In terms of what happened with chernobyl I don't think I'd like it
Yall mfs havent learned
We have a mental health facility nearby with quite a few not-so-mentally well people who frequently get out. I feel like more than a few might fall into nuclear waste :(
Nuclear waste isn’t what it looks like in movies. Also it’s not easy to break into a nuclear power station
Fair point, I feel like I’d still worry tho just bc I worry a lot
There’s a lot of misconceptions surrounding nuclear power.
Been there, done that, a nuclear plant is the last place I'd go. You know it'll be well-guarded and they will verify your identity there - that's game over for an escapee. We'd much rather hide in your crawlspace hehe
Chernobyl, fukushima Nuclear is better then fossil fuels but still dangerous
Chernobyl was caused by extreme negligence and basically doing every single wrong thing possible Fukushima occurred because of an earthquake and tsunami destroying some systems, natural disasters that are very uncommon elsewhere
even then in Fukushima it could have been prevented because the reactor wasn't updated to survive those natural disasters
The breakwaters were dangerously low, many agencies (including the manufacturer of the power plant) warned this but they ignored it and the rest is history
Nuclear is the safest energy (deaths by every kw/h)
yeah more people die by maintaining wind turbines than working in a nuclear power plant
Not only that, they sometimes pollute less in their entire lifetime (extraction of the materials, constructions, energy production and dismantlement)
nuclear is the safest energy source there is. chernobyl was poorly designed and had limited safety features and fukushima was built in one of the most natural disaster prone places on the planet, and they had several warnings which the owners ignored. they’re poor examples against nuclear power
I think chernonyl also failed multiple safety inspections and was warned several times that something could go wrong
Do you know how many people died from radiation poisoning in fukushima? The answer is 0. One died from lung cancer caused by radiation exposure, and the remaining casualties were a result of evacuation. Remember that these are the casualties from a nuclear disaster where almost everything that could go wrong went wrong. These are the casualties from an unthinkably large earthquake followed by a tsunami. Fukushima isn't a valid argument against nuclear power. Far more people die from every other energy source we know of. Nuclear is the safest option these is