• Emi@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I don’t know history of uranium very much but wasn’t it first used to paint ceramics and later radium for glowing watches? Uranium bombs were made later probably after it was used to generate power. But I wonder what our world would look like if there was not as much scare of nuclear power. Perhaps bit like fallouts world? We still have some time left to 23rd October 2077 thankfully.

    • _stranger_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The first man made reactor (there’s an extinct naturally occurring one) was created in 1942 as part of the Manhattan project to create the first bombs. So we really did speed run the tech tree for bomb on that one. The first nuclear power plant was in 1951.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      if there was not as much scare of nuclear power.

      I was pro nuclear until solar became cheaper than nuclear but I think if there was less scare about nuclear, there would have been more Chernobyls. That happened because of thinking it’s completely safe.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        I was pro-nuclear until Georgia Power stuck me with the bill for Plant Vogtle 3 and 4.

        (Or rather, I was pro-nuclear until shortly after construction began on a 7-year plan that ultimately took 15 years, when it started to become clear that gross incompetence and corruption was going to make it an expensive debacle.)

        Nuclear power from Vogtle 3 and 4 costs 16¢ per kWh (according to the linked document), by the way, compared to less than 0.1¢ per kWh expected by OP’s comic.

      • MrQuallzin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 day ago

        Chernobyl happened through the incompetence of leadership, not because they thought it was “completely safe”.

          • MrQuallzin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            I’d sure hope that the latest generation of a technology would be considered safe. That’s generally how things work. And then when accidents occur, we learn and make things safer the next time.

            As to them considering it completely safe, I’d love to read about that if you have sources. Cause I doubt that they thought it couldn’t fail.

            • SharkAttak@kbin.melroy.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              30 minutes ago

              Oh yes, you’d consider it safe, but you’d probably also be aware of its faults and shortcomings. Now I think I read it years ago in a book about the incident, but even reading the Wikipedia page I think we are both right: some of those working there were not even trained specifically for nuclear reactors, cause part of the technologies were considered state secrets.