• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    16
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    You see, it’s so much safer for Germans that Germany has been slowly poisoning itself by burning coal for the last few decades breathing in radioactive nuclei from the combustion of ionized compounds in the coal. By slowly breathing in lethal doses of carcinogens, they’ve completely avoided a nuclear meltdown.

    Obviously this was the safer route than a potential failure of a reactor. You know those things that are exceedingly governed or regulated and managed. Because Germany is such an active seismic zone with so many natural disasters that are constantly a present threat to its reactors.

    Now tell me again about this oceanfront property in Colorado you have for sale.

    • @someguy3
      link
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      But but but a different neighboring country with a completely different political and economic and oversight model had a problem because of wild corruption and utter ineptitude. Therefore we will have the exact same problem. There’s no avoiding it! Shut down all the reactors! (/s)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -1
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        That’s the spirit. Next time someone tries to reason with you just scream in their face and panic. There is no need for logic when you’re afraid.

        • @someguy3
          link
          English
          11 month ago

          deleted by creator

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 month ago

      The problem wasn’t potential reactor failure but the non-existant space for nuclear waste

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        7
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Nuclear waste isn’t nearly as much of a problem as it has been made out to be. The danger from nuclear waste is due to its high energy levels. But, reactors exist that can be fueled with the waste products of older, less efficient reactors. They can “burn” high-level waste products, producing energy and low-level waste that is dangerous on the order of decades rather than millenia.

        • @SlopppyEngineer
          link
          English
          61 month ago

          And meanwhile nobody talks about coal ash, what is toxic and needs a lot more space for storage.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 month ago

            And it’s also radioactive, and its release is far less controlled than a nuclear plant.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        6
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        There is no storage problem. You are just simply uninformed. . We can process about 95% of the fuel into usable energy. That remaining 5% would end up buried. We have the technology and materials to process it safely and entomb it in solid glass and then bury that glass a mile deep in the Earth. This is proven technology. We know for a fact that this would be a viable long-term storage solution as we have investigated naturally occurring reactors and found that their own fissile material that was encased in magma is still there multiple million years later while being in the middle of an active fault zone. The material naturally and safely decayed and did not spread or disperse through ground water contact in an unmanaged environment over millions of years. The only true obstacle is convincing luddites that. It can be done easily and with fully understood horizontal drilling technology pioneered in the 1950s for oil drilling.

        https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/disappearing-pod/the-worlds-only-natural-nuclear-reactor/#:~:text=In reality%2C the French had,French authorities’%20eyes%20was%20tiny.