Windmill : pics@lemmy.world

Hrmmmm we don’t know.. something tells us that’s not a windmill, but more like a gathering of a few hundred people standing in a field in the shape of a wind turbine… but we’re not entirely sure, so we’ll take your word on it.

permalink

fedilink

source

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 2 points 4 months ago

They absolutely need to do this in Washington DC on the 4th so the president can see how awesome they are.

permalink

fedilink

source

[+] reader@lemmy.zip -9 points 4 months ago (22 children)

ironically in front of nuke pp

permalink

fedilink

source

hideshow 22 child comments

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 13 points 4 months ago (11 children)

The two sources of energy don't have to be competition. Those on either side trying to make that happen are just defeating the fight against fossil fuels. They want the squabbling to distract from their dominance.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] starlinguk@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (10 children)

Nuclear is expensive and produces a shit ton of waste. Green energy is cheap and produces way less waste.

And don't start on "but green energy can't produce enough energy" when people who have solar panels are being fucking punished for producing "too much" energy while the local fossil fuel run power station can produce however much it likes.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago (9 children)

Nuclear doesn't produce all that much waste compared to how much energy you get out of it especially with modern reactors. Sure what you get out can be highly radioactive with a half life shorter than a Victorian child miners life expectancy, but we can contain that relatively easily or just drop it onto Utah nothing of worth outside of a couple parks going on there.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] realitista@lemmus.org 6 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Burning coal puts more nuclear waste into the atmosphere than nuclear does. Nuclear causes less deaths than pretty much all power sources, even some green ones.

Until coal and gas have been done away with completely, nuclear is a better option .

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Correct. I was just pointing out that a lot of the problems with nuclear are more or less solved. Before anyone brings up Fukashima I'm going to point out that was raw neglegence, the company running the reactor was told multiple times to move the backup generators up hill in case of tsunamis and guess what they didn't do.

Every last executive for that company needs to be tared, feathered, and ignited.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] realitista@lemmus.org 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

Oh I was answering the wrong post ;-)

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

Honestly it read like it was a further elaboration on mine so that's just what I figured it was.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] richardwallass@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago

Renewable also

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] richardwallass@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

There are 74 sites across the USA for those long-term waste. Some are very sensible sites like dry storage sites.those sites are costing taxpayers billions.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Soulg@ani.social 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Ok and if that's the cost of switching to nuclear over fucking coal and oil then it's a good thing

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] richardwallass@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago

Renewables and storage can do that too

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago

Given how ineffective the US economy is that may as well be a completely meaningless statement. I know damned well there are contracts out there that cost billions but the actual expense is only in the millions wages and whatnot included because the company is being bribed and bribing politicians in a corruption circle jerk.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] llii@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 4 months ago (1 child)

This is not a nuclear power plant, but a natural gas one: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gersteinwerk

The city of Hamm had a nuclear power plant in the 80s, but it was quickly shut down because of safety concerns and multiple incidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300

In the short operational life span of THTR-300 from 1985 to 1989, with only 423 full-load operating day equivalents, 80 incidents were logged.

Nuclear power is really great.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] stormeuh@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago*

Oh come on what is this argument, other than a gross generalisation?

The THTR-300 served as a prototype high-temperature reactor

This was one prototype reactor, which by the looks of it may have been managed by some incompetent people. Concluding from this that nuclear power is inherently unsafe, is like saying air travel is unsafe, because the 737 MAX fell out of the sky a few times.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent