Technology

59669 readers

3663 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

863

Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production (newatlas.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

178 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

This is exactly why I love nuclear

And who can forget the classic, "Where is the waste from fossil fuels? Take a deep breath, it's in your lungs. Where is the waste from nuclear power? Where we store it."

Yes there have been disasters but the waste from those are tracked, in a specific location, and can be cleaned up. The default state of fossil fuels hits every living breathing thing on Earth.

And even factoring in the impact from disasters nuclear is still the safest. And we have even safer designs for reactors nowadays then the reactors that had those disasters.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Nuclear suffers from the airplane fallacy where when something goes wrong it tends to go really wrong and a lot of people die at once and it makes the news. But fact is, many orders of magnitude more people have died from fossil fuel plants, mining, byproducts, and combustion. They just die slower, in smaller groups, so it doesn't get reported on as easily.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

They just die slower, in smaller groups

looks doubtful

I mean, I agree with your broader point that it gets a disproportionate amount of coverage and scares people, but I dunno about nuclear accidents killing people quickly and at once.

I mean, Chernobyl was the worst nuclear incident, ya? Like, there were definitely some people who were killed right there, but it was a pretty small group, even so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster

There is consensus that a total of approximately 30 people died from immediate blast trauma and acute radiation syndrome (ARS) in the seconds to months after the disaster, respectively, with 60 in total in the decades since, inclusive of later radiation induced cancer.[2][3][4] However, there is considerable debate concerning the accurate number of projected deaths that have yet to occur due to the disaster's long-term health effects; long-term death estimates range from up to 4,000 (per the 2005 and 2006 conclusions of a joint consortium of the United Nations) for the most exposed people of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, to 16,000 cases in total for all those exposed on the entire continent of Europe, with figures as high as 60,000 when including the relatively minor effects around the globe.

So, immediate deaths were about 30. I mean, that airline crash we had out in those Spanish islands, whatsit called....

googles

Yeah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster

The Tenerife airport disaster occurred on 27 March 1977, when two Boeing 747 passenger jets collided on the runway at Los Rodeos Airport[1] (now Tenerife North Airport) on the Spanish island of Tenerife.[2][3] The collision occurred when KLM Flight 4805 initiated its takeoff run during dense fog while Pan Am Flight 1736 was still on the runway. The impact and resulting fire killed all on board KLM Flight 4805 and most of the occupants of Pan Am Flight 1736, with only 61 survivors in the front section of the aircraft. With a total of 583 fatalities, the disaster is the deadliest accident in aviation history.[2][3]

I mean, that killed about 20 times the immediate number of deaths in Chernobyl. I guarantee you that that collision didn't get twenty times the media coverage or concern of Chernobyl.

Even if we use the highest estimated total death figure listed above for Chernobyl for the "increased death rate from minor effects around the world" -- 60,000 -- and I suspect that that's being awfully pessimistic -- it kind of gets dwarfed by how many similar deaths around the world we casually ignore from coal power and the like due to particulate emissions.

googles

If one's worried about death rates, nuclear's at about the bottom of the list.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Isn't it even safer than wind energy ?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And now we're in an age of nuclear fusion. My kid or grandkids may live in a world powered by even cleaner reactors. Which is great because they will probably have to live entirely indoors.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Eh, I feel like we've been in an age of nuclear fusion for decades, it's always just around the corner...

But maybe this latest set of breakthroughs will be it. I'll believe it when I see a production scale plant.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

It has value in terms of research but I’ve seen no evidence that we’re even remotely close to hooking a fusion reactor up to a grid.