They are promoting a safe, clean energy source that dumb and uninformed people are scared about. What is there to be mad about? I feel like post like these are better than some brainrot or reusage of old memes that we see all day on this sub.
You are the embodiment of why fossil fuels dominate our lives still. Every single anti nuclear person in the world I hope you accept your responsibility for climate change
The misinformation is obviously not to be taken literally. The point is the radioactive material symbol has always been useful by anti nuclear energy propaganda to make nuclear energy out to be worse then any alternative.
But this is reddit and nuanced thinking or literacy skills about determining the authors intent are lost here so I can't really blame you for that.
Unfortunately the Simpsons (sponsored by Shell) and Chernobyl incident (baka soviets) quite tarnished the method of boiling water using materials that split atoms. It's sad we can do that but decide to be coal
No, that is still the internationally recognized warning symbol for hazardous ionizing radiation. It still means a possibility for harm or death, depending on the circumstances.
But, yes, nuclear energy is about the ideal energy source we have currently.
Hardly. No technology is "clean." The environmental detriment of these technologies is honestly greater than that of classic fission nuclear when managed responsibly, plus the energy density is lower and cost is way higher.
The cost is actually much lower, you're excluding the fact that nuclear plants have to be rebuilt every 50 years and each malfunction can be real pricey in repairs plus uranium is not a renewable resource meaning the more we use it up the higher the price will get, that's why china is investing much more into solar then nuclear
I think you might be misunderstanding a few things here, one being that a modern nuclear plant design doesnt need to be rebuilt every 50 years, it’s needs regular maintenance, that’s it. Two with modern technology the fuel can be treated and reused with very little loss of material in the process, as well as the fact that we are not running short on fissionable materials, they are relatively common and the usage amount in a nuke plant is small. Third wind and solar are conditionally dependent and dont come anywhere close to the power generation efficiency of a nuke plant, the main drawback for nuclear is a high upfront cost in building. A modern nuke plant is a safe generational way to make cheap clean energy, even the Soviet RBMK park that had the famous incident at reactor 4 went on to generate power for several decades post accident and it did so safely and with minimal expense.
Nuclear plants do have to undergo considerable periodic maintenance, but this pales in comparison to the fact that, for example, every single solar panel on a solar farm needs to be thrown out and replaced every 25-30 years.
You're right that uranium is not a renewable resource, but then again, neither is any resource. There's plenty of uranium to go around for centuries while we work on better energy sources. There is also little detriment to consuming this finite resource, unlike fossil fuels, so while we have it, why not use it?
True. Tho in some cases one of the issues is volume, like lithium-ion batteries can also be recycled at over 90%, but there was not enough volume to justify building the facilities. However, because of electric cars, the volume now makes it make sense.
That's true, and it all gets very complex when we begin to speculate about the recycling capacity for solar panels we may have in the future.
Still, it's unavoidable that solar energy will be wasteful and environmentally harmful in some capacity, which is something that people often forget when referencing the simplistic "solar is green" perspectives they might have internalized.
Though, it sounds like you're quite knowledgeable and would not be prone to that sort of oversimplification.
I guess the goal is to be less harmful than the alternatives. And in this area, I do belive Solar is one of the best options. Since the main components in PV are glass and aluminium, the biggest issue is, as often, the plastic.
A 2016 study by the International Renewable Energy Agency estimates the recyclable materials in old solar modules will be worth $15 billion in recoverable assets by the year 2050. And with the recent increase in solar power popularity, I assume it will probably be a lot more unless there is a major disruption. Europe has accelerated renewable expansion. Because of the situation in Ukraine and Iran.
I never said to not use it but it's simply not the best anymore, solar is dirty cheap in production and also new ones are usable up to 40 years making them simply better
In that case, I'd be delighted to hear a valid argument against nuclear fission that doesn't rest on outdated perceptions or misinformed public opinion.
Nuclear fission isn’t the “best” energy source overall. Yes, it’s low-carbon and can run 24/7, but it also produces waste that stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years, has a small but real risk of catastrophic meltdowns, is insanely expensive and slow to build, depends on finite uranium with its own mining impacts, and creates serious proliferation and security issues. On top of that, big reactors don’t flex well with variable demand and often tie up capital that could be used faster and cheaper elsewhere.
If you’re asking what’s actually best right now: a mix dominated by wind, solar, and other renewables, backed by storage, demand response, efficiency, and modernized grids. That combo cuts emissions quickly, scales fast, keeps costs down, and avoids most of fission’s unique long-term risks.
Also on a personal level easily the best option is to pair rooftop solar with an EV and a smart-grid setup so your car works as a mobile battery, charging from your panels in the day and feeding power back to your home or the grid at night via bidirectional (V2H/V2G) charging. That can cover a typical households weekly demand with one mid-range EV, cut storage costs by avoiding a separate home battery, and even earn money by stabilizing the grid. If that setup will be approved by the government is another issue but the technology is easily the best.
And why you can trust my evaluation?
I studied environmental technology engineering.
Its clean, safe and reliable energy IF they do the maintenance it needs, but because they didnt once or twice, they keep using it as an example why it is never safe
But instead of escaping straight to the atmosphere, it's waste that we can keep in containers so it doesn't contaminate us or our environment, which makes it effectively preferable for now to other non-renewable ways to produce energy, that produce and release a lot of CO2.
The trade off is that those containers are not eternal, and the risk is to have the waste eventually spill anyway, and contaminate the environment. I've briefly worked for a nuclear waste treatment plant, and the processing of nuclear waste is an absolute pain in the ass, even with robots to do the job for you. And when I say nuclear waste, I don't only mean the product of the fission of nuclear fuel, but also all the contaminated tools and objects that go with the exploitation of nuclear fuel. The production of energy itself is rather safe, but the processing that goes around it is very wasteful.
Even worse, the waste is dangerous for such a long time that we're not even sure future humans will still understand the warnings (such as this symbol) and not cause a catastrophe.
I can understand enthusiasm for nuclear energy, and a lot of it is justified. But let's not misrepresent it for the sake or promotion. This symbol STILL means death. Radiations haven't stopped being dangerous just because we're trying to get rid of CO2 emissions.
I hope it is fair to assume you are a reasonable person who is open to considering new perspectives and information which may not align with your current views. Research has shown that common anti-nuclear narratives based on claims of unmanageable radiological risks are effectively forms of misinformation. The commonly perceived risks turn out to be grossly exaggerated in those arguments. If you are willing to consider that possibility or would at all be interested in the science, here is one such publication.
The article you linked correctly identifies some unfounded fears about nuclear energy and its immediate dangers. It also covers how the transport of nuclear fuel and waste is safe as long as it's done within legal standards, which we can't actually be sure will always be the case, as demonstrated by the incidents that already occurred.
It also doesn't touch on the problem of long time storage, which is my main point. It basically only says the storage sites as safe right now, because they're well managed and the containers and facilities are in good shape after a few decades. Except we will need them to be well managed for thousands of years, and we absolutely cannot guarantee that. In fact, given the history of humanity, we're almost guaranteed they will stop being managed entirely at some point, way before the waste stops being a problem.
Again, I'm not against nuclear energy. But the reason why it's rather safe right now is because we're taking the risks very seriously. Telling everyone it's clean and without risks is wrong and a recipe for disaster in the future. Nuclear energy comes with problems we must be acutely aware of, if we don't want to get slapped in the face by the consequences of our negligence.
Your image is an excellent demonstration of that. The radiation symbol is something we put where there is something dangerous in order to keep people safe. If you convince them it doesn't actually stand for something dangerous, people will not get cautious and will get hurt.
Thanks for trying to educate people on this, I gave up long ago because of how brainless propaganda is. People just act like "it's this or coal/petroleum" as if there aren't many other reneweable options. Posts like these are just trying to promote a single industry while ignoring any downsides and it's so obvious it makes me wonder about bots or commercial push. It does cause engagement tbh.
Most other forms like solar or wind cannot provide near enough at peak outputs of the day it's just not feasible. Hydros pretty good but it's just not everywhere you're not going to get hydro in the Nevada desert it's not happening
Also not everything has to be around the US, you know... just because hydro isn't good there (not because of the desert since power can be transported like Brazil does from South to Northeast's desert area, but rather having an available huge strong river) doesn't mean it's not good in general
Yeah when you read about the history of dangerous products like lead, radium, asbestos, it's sometimes hard to believe the loose mental associations they pulled to justify stuffing their body full of it.
On the other hand, caring about the effects of stuff on health is a relatively recent thing in the history of human beings.
No they're not a green glowing fluid. Nuclear waste is a lot of different things. Some of it is just radioactive metal blocks, some of it is contaminated metal, plastic, concrete, fabric, etc. Some of it is indeed contaminated liquids. A LOT of it is radioactive dust. They're usually encased in concrete in metal barrels.
That's relatively safe for now because they're contained. But we don't actually know for how long it will be safe, and yes, the contaminated material might escape the containment in the future. Because we cannot guarantee that those barrels will remain stored properly for thousands of years, and that they will stay structurally good enough for that long.
And it's not even an imaginary scenario, we already had cases of containment barrels being thrown at sea by lazy contractors, and corroding to the point the water soaked the concrete and got contaminated. Fortunately, the damage seemed relatively limited this time. But if we can have that in only a few years, now imagine we have to wait for tens of thousands of years hoping this kind of things don't happen or worse.
I dont get why people argue over energy and fuel sources like they are sports teams. Or most things really. Why not be happy at the mutliple solutions instead of anal that your favourite solution got slightly less attention?
If you include Chernobyl in safety stats, nuclear is safer than wind. If you realize Chernobyl is long abandoned tech, then even the current western fleet of nuclear is orders of magnitude safer than solar.
I don't get why the internet has become so enraptured with nuclear power again. Even if it were true that long-term storage would be less of an issue with modern reactor types, and that a modern nuclear power plant is relatively safe, that still doesn't change the fact that nuclear energy is one of the most expensive methods of power generation out there. There is no way for a private entity to make a profit without government subsidies by running a nuclear power plant. Renewable energy from wind and solar is simply cheaper, even accounting for the large battery storage facilities needed to buffer highs and lows in energy production.
Lots of people seem to think as well that a baseline level of energy production is needed to stabilize the grid for when there's no solar or wind power, but that isn't the case. We have overproduction at certain times of day, and we can manage just fine by storing that excess energy and releasing it into the grid at low points in production. In such a scenario, a stable baseline from nuclear would actually be counterproductive, because a nuclear power plant isn't able to modulate output fast enough to cope with a modern grid based on renewable energy.
That's just the symbol for radiation twin. But I do understand what you are trying to say. And as a professional electrician, I do agree. Atomic energy is the most efficient, cleanest way to create vast amounts of energy we currently have.
Clean: Yeah, until you have to look for a place to bury the trash.
Safe: Mostly, but we saw what natural disasters do to the things.
Reliable: France had to shut down reactors due to heat, a problem that will only become worse in the future.
Don't get me wrong, It is not the "YOU WILL ALL DIE" kind of tech, but I would appreciate it if people stopped treating nuclear as this perfect technology.
The other argument is that coal, oil, and natural gas are unsafe all the time. Nuclear waste is solid, they bundle it up and store it. Oil/gas when burned goes into the air. It’s in our lungs, in our blood. I don’t have stats on hand but these fossil fuels are literally killing us right now.
Solar is just that easy, you just put solar panels where roofs are. zero increase in space needed, just replace the surface of all roofs with panels and there's that.
Yeah, maybe you should read up on how safe Fukushima is right now.
Like I said, it's all super cool and noon polluting until something goes horribly wrong. Then the area around it won't be habitable for about 3000 years.
But sure, let's downvote some more so your fabricated sense of debate goes down with it.
Fukushima is almost entirely safe right now, what are you talking about? I think like 2% of the prefecture is under strict control as it's rehabilitated. I was just there in 2024 when I was visiting friends in Sendai. The truth is fossil fuels kill millions per year and nuclear kills less than 100 per year. That last 2% is the immediate area around the reactor and it's planned to be cleaned up in less than 30 years.
And also, let's not forget that Fukushima got slammed by a 9th magnitude earthquake, followed by a fucking Tsunami. All things considered, what happened there was catastrophic, and the current situation is near miraculous when you think about what caused it in the first place.
Nuclear energy is safe and reliable. The US Navy uses nuclear to power their submarines and aircraft carriers. Things that are designed to operate and survive in war zones. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear powered things do not automatically explode and spread radiation when damaged.
Since the 1900s, the number of coal mine fires, oil spills, pipe leaks, power plant explosions that have resulted in environmental damage and human death number in the hundreds. In contrast, since the first nuclear power reactor's invention in 1942, there have been only 3 incidents where reactors critically failed and melted down: 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Of those 3, only 2, Chernobyl and Fukushima, were confirmed to have directly caused death and environmental damage.
Nuclear energy doesn't have a safety problem. It has a PR problem.
It's a cleaner energy source than coal cause you know what that funny spicy rock does?? It boils water to make steam.
Byproduct of nuclear energy can be reused later for more energy or placed in REALLY HEAVY concrete that shields it and be buried far below the ground.
This is also easier than wind power which is unreliable and kills birds, solar panels which takes up land and is unreliable due to clouds, and hydro power which can fail worse than a nuclear power plant (take a look at Japan and how they dealt with the natural disaster that caused a reactor to melt down)
↑Me when I'm terrified of poorly managed and constructed (even by USSR standards) nuclear power plant from the late 1970s.
Jokes aside, nuclear is significantly safer than most people depict, or imagine. Yes it produces waste that's dangerous if left untreated, but so does for example lithium production. Y'know that one mineral we need for batteries to power the electric cars that are considered so green and eco friendly? (The same cars that are likely using coal generated electricity, but whatever) Those literally REQUIRE pools of mass death and suffering as a manufacturing stage... Well, they arent necessarily pools of mass death and suffering, but they CAN be, if mismanaged. Just like literally everything else. Like for example if a factory dumps waste water into a river, or you completely break every rule in your "how to operate this overly complicated steam powered generator" guide book...
I'm not gonna pretend to know wether it's necessary or better.
But I definitely know it's not safe. It was supposed to be safe in Chernobyl and we avoided a nuclear dust cloud rolling over Europe by the skin of some poor russian's teeth.
If Nuclear Power Plants become the norm it will be a matter of time until human stupidity (or mother nature fucking us over like it has happened in Japan) causes another disaster.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 18 '26
It's repost weekend with a twist! Details here! But TL;DR, no reposts of posts that already #got 1,000 upvotes!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.