• empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    This is the one side of the aisle I think Bernie is always on the wrong side of. Nuclear power of some form will be required for a full transition away from fossil sources, and it should be telling how fast other nations like China are dumping money into it. It is cleaner and causes fewer accidents per GWh than any fossil source ever has- it’s just been demonized for decades by those who stand to benefit from it being restricted and painted as a “non-green” energy source.

    • Nomecks@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      The problem is that humans cut corners for power and profit, and the nuclear industry is no exception.

      • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 days ago

        sure, and you think this isn’t also happening in every single other industry right now?

        That’s a regulatory problem and not a fundamental mechanics problem. the logic of “well it’s good but humans will cut corners” means we should never do anything at all.

      • aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        i’m not sure what you’re talking about… The nuclear energy industry has a track record of safety and extensively regulated engineering that surpasses virtually any other industry

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    15 days ago

    I’m usually against Sanders on this, but I very much respect the risky part of that sentence. Because I just don’t have a lot of faith in the future right now, and I don’t know if I trust any nuclear options going forward. I mean after Trump wins the election and implements his project f, or whatever it was called, who’s going to be the head of the nuclear regulatory agency? One of his shitty kids friends? Maybe Sanders is right and it’s a bad time.

    • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Would you be surprised that we have dozens of nuclear plants all over the United States? Modern reactors that can withstand the mistakes of the past without the disaster? Media makes the public think the risk is higher than it is when in reality, more people have died per year installing renewables than all the nuclear disasters combined (per GW/H).

      Nuclear is simply too energy dense to ignore.

      • WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Where do you put the waste? For how long and at what cost?

        What about the cost of decommissioning nuclear sites at the end of their life?

        • makeasnek@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          14 days ago

          In the ground, very deep, forever, for not nearly as much money as you might think. It takes up very, very little space. It’s not green liquid that can spill, it’s pieces of glass.

          • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            14 days ago

            We did that in Germany, and it’s now contaminating groundwater, as the very deep hole is flooding with water.

            • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 days ago

              You put things around the glass so that groundwater never touches the ‘glass’. Again, very different now from the days we started.