A sea cow or a land cow?
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2026
316 points (87.4% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
41218 readers
3863 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah nobody ever died here (an uranium mine) and you absolutely don't need any fossil fuel to make it works.
Nuclear energy is better than fossils, but it's far from green.
Nuclear causes the fewest deaths out of all available energy sources, except solar, which is a tiny bit lower in that regard. Both wind and hydro have a higher death toll, with wind being just slightly above nuclear, and hydro being a lot higher (about 40x more deaths).
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh
Usually I wouldn't cite this source, but in this case their data matches other, more trustworthy ones, and is the first that shows up in search engines.
It also have a bit of due to regulations making sure people who work on nuclear are way more compentent, while other green energy infrastructure can be built by rando workers like your roads and such. Kind of similar to how air travels are the safest only because of strict protocols and requirements to work on it.
This is probably true when it comes to wind, but deaths from hydro is all about dams breaking.
Almost all deaths from both nuclear and hydro are caused by major accidents like Chernobyl or the Banqiao Dam.
Which makes you think, considering coal power plants still cause infinitely more deaths - and that's just standard operation.
Exactly. Also the deaths from coal are not contained to a single spot.
Just the radioactive damage from coal under normal operation is worse than the radioactive damage from nuclear disasters.
Those deaths are counted in my 5 k
You actually don't need any fossil fuel to make it work. You just have to electrify the mining machinery then you can power it with solar, wind, hydro and nuclear.
“You just have”… that wishful-thinking and technosolutionism.
We literally have them in use already but ok.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH8xyFzSMc0 as Ev's continue to replace autos they become cheaper than diesel.
that wishful-thinking and technosolutionism
you should direct that to the 5 people who have said grid scale batteries in this thread
Oh yes of course, a mine only use fuel for their vehicles. You know a whole lot about mining, obviously.
Edit: and I never said that it was technically impossible. It is. But it's impractical and far too costly in a lot of places, the vehicies need far too much down time so you need more vehicles, the surplus of electricity needed would be a problem in a lot of places, and it would still need fuel for a lot of adjacent needs. And I didn't even took into account the other destructive “externalities” to mining not strictly related to air pollution, like the destruction of ecosystems, that we still don't know how to ecologically treat the electric vehicles after they stopped working, or that it would mean more mining to find the ressources to electrify mining… it's not green. Not at all. An electrified mine is better than an other, but all mines are catastrophes.
And ironically, electrification is better suited for underground mines. You know which mines are mostly underground? Coal mines. Others are mainly surface mines, and electrification is harder for surface mines.
China is doing that. It does make sense as mining operations tend to also are far out so not needing to send fuel in would allow the less dense battery to pay itself off if the operation goes long enough.
Electrification of the operation also could benefit if we get better technique to process nuclear to convert some of them to energy on site
Public trust in governments and the private sector is at an all time low, all around the world. And that's an earned reputation.
Nuclear energy is a promising solution, but there are risks associated with it that cannot be ignored.
Can you trust a government that can't even feed it's poor and house them to properly dispose of all nuclear waste used at scale? I doubt it. Even if it's done right for a while, that handling will erode because everything in our system does. That's the problem.
The question isn't just efficacy of the technology. It's implementation. Execution. Maintenance. Long term sustainability.
Thorium Salt Reactors eat waste uranium and are capable of creating more uranium form thorium for legacy reactors in a continuous cycle.
implementation. Execution. Maintenance. Long term sustainability.
Fossil Fuel fired power plants?
I'm ok with Thorium Salt reactors. I believe it was Taylor Wilson who suggested they could even use recycled nuclear missile payloads for this system.
Sustainability is relative. It might seem OK for a very long time. Until a future Trump comes along and rips up all the "nuclear red tape" and it leads to a global Chernobyl disaster. At that point, let's just use solar, wind and other safer options ey.
You can say that but I remember Fukushima. The damage causes by the Fukushima meltdown cost more than the power company's total profits in Japan over the previous 40 years.
So keep telling me that nuclear is safe, and I'll keep pointing to the damage it is guaranteed to cause. Low risk high consequence situations are the hardest to regulate. And you're risking your entire city, all at once, everything in it.
But look, the real question is what new sources to build. Current sources will stay online for years or decades. For new production, the cheapest by far is solar, followed by wind, as long as the externalities are dumped back on the utilities. Also, home solar means the utilities can't price gouge you.
The cost was because people like you dont understand low dose exposure and stick to the LNT model for radiation exposure. So they literly dug out the ground and removed all traces of radation. On paper that sounds great till you realize that nothing is radiation free and this was essentially a massive theatrical production of mopping the rain.
There's been what, three disasters total similar to the one in Fukushima? And remind me, how many people died from that one? Was it one guy?
it isnt about the total DC its about lasting damage in the affected people and environment
Just to be clear, I'm not claiming that nuclear is not problematic. It is. But the lasting damage from ultra rare major disasters is like a decade of topsoil contamination.
You can compare nuclear to hydro and coal, because those are the similar sources that can produce base load electricity. In that group, nuclear is by far the least problematic.
Are you suggesting that Fukushima did more lasting damage to the environment than the fossil fuel industry...?
what about a cow shark.
Thank God. I've never even seen a cow, but I swim wish sharks daily. I have a few small cuts that still bleed a bit when I get into the water, and the sharks have been acting a lot more aggressive and bitey than normal.
I was really starting to get worried until I saw this post.
Incidentally, I live in Sacramento, in the California Central Valley, which is desert. Recently, its gotten up to 117° here (which is still low compared to Death Valley).
Solar is awesome.
load more comments
(5 replies)
How many cases of cancer are caused by burning fossil fuels and micro plastics from tires? I bet a fucking dick load.
Nuclear is cool. With proper regulation, it's amazing!
BUT, it's not what we must be focusing on right now. Renewable sources of energy are safer and much MUCH cheaper to implement than nuclear. Also, renewables don't require decades to come online.
So, "why renewables? Just go nuclear brooo" is a bad bad argument, likely made in bad faith by OnG companies to delay implementation of renewables.
The goal should be "how do we go from the status quo to a non GHG emitting source of energy generation as fast as possible?".
Nuclear doesn't compete with wind and solar. You can put up wind and hydro cheaply and quickly almost anywhere, and that's great and all and we should honestly subsidize manufacture inside Europe rather than just rely on buying from China.
But you still need base load and nuclear is the only option that makes any sense on scale from an ecological perspective. Hydro is highly situational and almost always a worse option for the environment, as well as for safety. Coal plants should never be an option.
So yeah, just go nuclear bro.
There is no one ideal energy source. The best approach is, as always, to diversify. Relying completely on one source is irresponsible. Nuclear with renewables is a fantastic mix. Especially in countries that can't reliably generate significant amounts of electricity with hydro.
Renewable sources of energy are safer
They're actually not, generally speaking. All types of renewable energy, with the exception of solar, cause more deaths than nuclear does.
- https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh
- https://cheatsheets.davidveksler.com/deaths-per-terawatt-hour.html
Some articles report slightly lower death tolls for renewables, but don't provide any sources for that data. Geothermal energy, which neither of the two sources above includes for some reason, sits right next to wind, so slightly above nuclear in terms of deaths caused per terawatt-hour.
load more comments
(1 replies)
All the nuclear stuff happens in one place, with a few people minding it. But they do have to be super careful and know what they're doing.
And if there's a critical flaw in the reactor design (looking at you Chernobyl) it can go very very wrong.
Renewables are all spread out, and a lot more people manage it for the power output.
That also means a lot more people have power-related jobs.
Fossil Fuels, Methane (Natural Gas) and Coal are just ugly all around. But they have really, really great lobbyists.
The RBMK design was outdated 10 years before construction.... but yeah lets unironically compare a model T Ford with no automatic controls slop welded together with shit tolerences and barely any control systems to a modern car with sensors and with safety features because they are both examples of a car.
There's two problems, and the Kurzgesagt two-parter on nuclear fission power discusses them both.
One is that nuclear power plants are long term projects and you're stuck with what you built, even as improved versions are designed and flaws are discovered with what you have. Yes, sometimes we retrofit our nuclear plants to make them safer (or more efficient, or prettier).
The other is that contractor firms have had a bad habit of just designing the same simple LWRs over and over again, even as engineers have developed designs that are safer, more efficient, more elegant, etc.
But this doesn't mean either of those can change.
China seems to be leading the way in LSRs. Using water as a modulator is very old tech.
view more: next ›