Friendly reminder that air pollution from fossil fuels kill ~9 million people per year
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
214 points (87.7% liked)
Memes
45545 readers
1071 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The title of this post is sarcasm
Oh yeah, I understood this is a pro nuclear meme. I agree with your meme.
The number of people who told me that they were against nuclear and wanted to shut down nuclear plants yesterday but can't comprehend that they will be replaced by coal fire...... Inspired this meme. https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/15/europe/germany-nuclear-phase-out-climate-intl/index.html
That is bullshit. They are not replaced by coal plants. They are replaced by renewables as can be seen by the percentage of renewable energy in the German grid increasing since. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2023/german-net-power-generation-in-first-half-of-2023-renewable-energy-share-of-57-percent.html
Stop lying to peddle your agenda against renewables.
Could they have replaced coal with those renewables instead of nuclear?
Show the rest of the chart. https://images.app.goo.gl/Dt1xAeP87Bjy6xxV6
how is the chart ranging until 2022 relevant for 2023?
Germany needs to do a lot more to go fully renewable, like all countries need to do. And the conservative government under Merkel has been desastrous for the expansion of renewables.
But claiming that the remaining nuclear power that was shut off now as sheduled would have been replaced by coal is a lie.
Also Merkel didnt decide to exit nuclear in 2022. The decision was made in 2002 with the plan to ramp up renewables.Then Merkel throttled renewables and exited the exit from nuclear power only to exit the exit from the exit two years later. As a result 6 Billion Euros in "compensation" was thrown at the nuclear industry and renewables were not put back on track but left at a low burn.
If we went with the original plan wed be mostly renewable and much cheapr now, but well conservatives and "liberals" always need to fuck things over in favor of fossil industries like nuclear.
Thank you John
You're welcome. To do the same, you can click open image in new tap, copy the address, then link the address in Lemmy with an extra exclamation point in front. The link format is [description](link here).
I wouldn’t be worried. Nuclear waste is fairly easy to detect and carries a unique signature from the reactor that it came from. If an operator starts dumping waste, they’re going to be caught very quickly.
That's the joke, everyone is scared of a hypothetical non-viable fear and they completely ignore the current reality.
That requires someone to want to catch them and not be corrupted.
What is this? Just 75 years of illegal waste dumping, poisoning thousands of people. And the Government made sure to help cover up and downplay the issue.
Bribes, bribes and more bribes seem totally normal for the nuclear industry.
Noone sane would trust these kind of people to organize safe storage for hundreds of thousands of years.
I'm super pro nuclear energy But at the same time people are stupid and that kind of scares me
US Navy reactors are run by 18-year-olds supervised by 25-year-olds so far pretty good track record.
They both suck. Going renewable is the only way.
You should search the term grid scale storage and get back to me with a viable solution.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
Already a thing m8
You'll only need a few great lakes worth of water for most major cities.
That's the easy part we've got plenty of ocean the hard part is building the mountain
Could we use landfills? 2 birds 1 stone
Set them on fire first for the aesthetic
That's not viable everywhere or at scale. Creating new reservoirs would also cause great environmental damage.
Silly me I didn't realize we were just going to install mountains every time we needed a battery. Unfortunately most of humanity lives on the coast unfortunately most of the coast is flat...
Furthermore we would still need to increase a renewable production by over 60% before we would be able to maintain base load and even need the pump storage but go on.
Our country barely has any coast. And we're done with nuclear anyway, so that sounds like a you problem.
And hydrogen, and batteries, and overbuilding, and geographic distribution and a lot more but nukeheads gonna nukehead.
I do not think you comprehend how much power would need to be stored. We are steadily electrifying every single industry year after year we use more and more electricity to power that demand we are burning more fossil fuels than ever before while in conjunction utilizing more renewables than ever before well maintaining the same average nuclear load for the last 20 years....
Renewables and storage is what is gonna happen, you can argue against that as much as you want. Growth of renewables is exponential, growth of nuclear is nonexistent.
I swear to God you're going to kill me with an aneurysm. It's only non-existent because of dumbasses like you.
Its nonexistent because its expensive and impractical. Every cent spent for nuclear is a wasted cent because you would get twice the power from renewables. LCOE.
How about a mixture of batteries (redox-flow, LiFePo, NaFePO, iron-air, Li-Ion), thermal storage (porous volcanic stone, heated water, liquid salt), mechanical storage (giant rotating masses, compressed air), pumped hydroelectrical storage, power-to-gas or power to liquid(hydrogen or ammonia) and creating interconnected power grids?
That should do. Would not create a single point of failure and prevent having everything in the hands of probably a single entity.
While I agree that we need to pursue energy storage solutions In addition to investing in renewables and nuclear. I feel that it would be staggeringly inefficient to have to harvest and store and then redistribute power at the scale you are describing. The power loss and transmission alone from generation to battery to end user would be over 30% most likely. And at that point It's far more efficient to directly energize the consumer with an on-demand source such as a nuclear power plant.
There's a strong argument to be made for nuke plants, but there's a solid, high production value video here. It's Kurzgesagt if you know them.
EDIT. This was supposed to be a reply to /u/Omega_Haxors
Reactor bad.jpg. Bill Gates money tainted them all don't you know they exclusively build the reactor foundations upon the corpses of microchipped babies
Oh you mean that Gates-funded greenwasher? I think I recognize him from somewhere.
I like the cut of your jib
Literal cult shit. No arguments, just "everyone who disagrees with us is [pejorative]"
That's an hour long, about a different video than the one I linked (or at least the bits I skimmed were), and so far as I know Gates understands that climate change is a huge threat. Greenwashing is a weird accusation and I don't understand how it applies here.
But whatever, welcome to the block list.
The important thing is clean energy, regardless of whether or not it is renewable.
Fossil fuel based solutions are significantly worse for climate change than nuclear. Saying that the other renewables are better is matter of discussion, but renewables without nuclear are not going to make the cut. Using both renewables and nuclear is best to cut emissions.
nuclear is not viable. It is not stabilizing but endangering the grid as nuclear plants are vulnerable to heat waves and dry spells. The kind of westher events to increase drastically with climate change. In Europe many nuclear reactors had to be powered down in the last summers because they couldnt get cooled anymore. Also they put further stress on limited water ressources by literally evaporating the water away.
You can life without electricity but you cant life without water.
I should have a copy pasta ready because every time nuclear is coming in a conversation we get the same argument about nuclear being vulnerable to climate change because some french reactors have been powered down in summer and trying to imply that renewables energies are immune to weather events
Yes some reactors have been powered down in summer because of heat wave but only some of the older design that send heated water back in the river. It's not a problem for the majority of the reactors.
It's not an issue because most of the reactors are still online, because summer is the moment with the lowest electrical consumption anyway and because in summer solar production is at the highest point so the power grid is fine even with few reactors off.
On the other hand winter is the moment where the power grid is under stress, December, January and February the country is peaking its electrical consumption, solar production is at the lowest point so reactors need to be fully operational at this period. It's fitting perfectly with the climate since this is also the months when the water is at the highest level and heat is not an issue.
But since we are talking about extreme weather events what is happening to solar panels during hail storms and to wind turbines during heavy storms ? They can take damage too, renewable energies are not immune to climate either.
Edit: Nuclear isn't the perfect solution, renewables are not perfect either but we need to work with what we have and using both nuclear where possible and renewables is probably the best option we have.
It's okay OP I got the joke