• llii@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • stormeuh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day 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.

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • Starya67@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • realitista@lemmus.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 day ago

            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 .

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              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.

          • richardwallass@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              21 hours 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.

            • Soulg@ani.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

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