this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
533 points (87.4% liked)

Science Memes

11047 readers
2855 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 5 points 31 minutes ago (1 children)

No it's about nuclear waste and where to store it, it's about how expensive it is to build a nuclear power plant (bc of regulations so they don't goo boom) and it's about how much you have to subsidize it to make the electricity it produces affordable at all. Economically it's just not worth it. Renewables are just WAY cheaper.

[–] beeng@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 21 minutes ago

Fire's waste is just all particulates in the air which we all share.

[–] Takumidesh@lemmy.world 39 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Funny how nuclear power plants are taboo, but building thousands of nuclear warheads all over the globe is no issue.

[–] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Funny how building nuclear power plants that can only (if you have dipshits running them) kill a nearby city is taboo, but climate change that will kill everyone is acceptable to the moralists.

[–] oyo@lemm.ee 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Funny how solar, wind, and batteries are way cheaper and faster to build yet people are still talking about nuclear.

[–] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago

Stopping nuclear from being built is the problem.

We would have had a lot more clean energy than we do by now if we let the nuclear power plants that "would take too long to build!" be built back then, because they'd be up and running by now.

More letting perfect be the enemy of good.

[–] meliaesc@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago (4 children)

Funny how whataboutism makes your audience defensive.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Iheartcheese@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

I'm in Missouri so apparently I'm surrounded by silos

[–] OprahsedCreature@lemmy.ml 29 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The problem isn't that they exploded one time. The problem is that that one explosion is still happening and likely will be for quite a while.

On the other hand, modern rock exploding plant designs are so much better that it's very unlikely to repeat itself, so there's that.

[–] Baylahoo@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 hours ago

I'm sure the other rock/liquid/gas burning plants have had no issues along their lifetime and had no hand in demonizing the "new" slowly exploding rock technology after extreme negligence let the one big one happen. /s

I'd take the band aid of nuclear in my backyard vs what we rely on now after learning all of the insider knowledge of someone who personally worked in energy generation that did all of this plus renewables almost their entire professional life.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 25 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

Paraphrased but this is right.

And the people were taught to talk about the horrible nuclear accidents that killed a few but completely glance over the unimaginable millions perished in the name of oil, mustn't even mention the mass extinction events we launched with oil.

We even spread exaggerated bullshit about radiation mutation (wtf? thats superhero comic books fiction!!) and cancer rates (only one really), ignoring how much overwhelmingly more of the both we get from fossil fuel products.

We are like prehistoric people going extinct bcs of the tales how generations ago someone burned down their house so fire bad. Well, actually not like that - we are taking with us a lot of species & entire ecosystems too.

[–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 10 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It's more like "Bob and Jim died in a fire a while ago, so everyone decided to put up with heaps of people dying to hypothermia and uncooked meat"

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 7 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

The local undertaker family tells the story about Bob and Jim once a week to the whole village (attendance is mandatory).

[–] Facebones@reddthat.com 1 points 1 hour ago

We're all stories in the end.

[–] Mbourgon@lemmy.world 10 points 6 hours ago

“Ted Kennedy killed more people than Three Mile Island” - Bumper sticker.

That’s said, I facepalm at Fukushima. And desperately want more modern systems

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 44 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

You're right to reject the logic behind that because it's nonsense. Its not making sense to them because they still presume some kind of good faith when it come to these sorts of things.

The reason we haven't built more nuclear power stations is because oil, gas and coal companies will make less money, if we build more nuclear power stations.

They have the means, the motive and they have a well recorded history of being that cartoonishly villainous. Nothing else makes sense.

[–] Baylahoo@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 hours ago

It's crazy that Mr. Burns from the Simpsons was in nuclear and not coal or oil. Probably a product of the propaganda at the time.

[–] Screen_Shatter@lemmy.world 13 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl really did change things. Prior to those incidents there were plans to build over 50 more nuclear plants in place which got canceled as a result. Currently oil and gas industries will do all they can to keep nuclear from making a come back, but for a long time they didn't have to do shit thanks to those catastrophes.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 3 points 5 hours ago

They didn't have to but they did anyway.

load more comments
view more: next ›