You must log in or # to comment.
“Indestructible”?
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Thanks for the laugh, pal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY446h4pZdc
Pretty much, yeah
In the 1990s, the NRC had to “take repeated actions to address defective welds on dry casks that led to cracks and quality assurance problems; helium had leaked into some casks, increasing temperatures and causing accelerated fuel corrosion”.[11]
With the zeroing of the federal budget for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada in 2011, more nuclear waste began being stored in dry casks. Many of these casks are stored in coastal or lakeside regions where a salt air environment exists, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology posited that corrosion in these environments could occur in 30 years or less, while the NRC was studying whether the casks could be used for 100 years as some hoped.[12]
Impervious to absolutely anything, except a little helium, or slightly salty air.
That video is strange marketing nonsense. Running a train doesn’t apply the same forces and wear-down as nature will, just ask your mother.
My momma doesn’t work in hazardous materials handling, I do. So maybe your mom can ask me?
BREATHE*
More and more words are apparently becoming to hard to use correctly for a big part of people online. This is one that I almost never saw anyone getting wrong until a couple of years ago and it’s becoming more and more common, same with writing “cloth/cloths” instead of “clothe/clothes”. It’s infuriating.
Only for grammar Facists. You know what people mean,
The advantage of spelling correctly is people actually do understand you. When you use the wrong word it moves focus from your joke and onto the word that is hard to parse
Sometimes, yeah. Other times I have to re read the sentence two or three times before I figure out what it’s supposed to say.
So yeah, basically fuck off with your “gRaMaR fAsCiSt” shit if you actually want to be understood.
becoming too hard! English spelling makes no sense anyway, but the mistake I understand the least is people writing “would of”, in my mind it sounds too different from “would’ve”, but I don’t know, maybe for some particular mother tongue they sound similar (or maybe they really do sound similar, and I say them wrong)
Why people here argue about cost or energy potential or resource mine of nuclear? Meme only about fossil waste extremely normalized?
I think it’s a pro-nuclear energy meme, joking on people’s misplaced worry and minimising the danger of stored nuclear waste
I feel that pro nuclear stuff is trying to make people less interested in renewable energy despite a city being able to add more energy to its grid in weeks with solar and wind backed by batteries compared to two decades for nuclear, but also you need enough because every few decades it needs to shut down for months to be refuelled at enormous expense.
Wind power waste is inert, solar power waste is highly recyclable
They say “keep using coal and oil, because nuclear is the only good electric power supply and will surely come real soon”
Ohh, not understand that way. Thank you.
In germany argument most about replace fossil with nuclear and a lot renewable. Not build nuclear instead renewable.
Can’t be funny everything must be serious.:-P
Indestructible like the Runit dome?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-15/cracks-appear-in-runit-dome-amid-sea-level-rise/106423684
Get lost with your expensive nuclear energy. Renewables produce MUCH cheaper energy.
If we didn’t fight Nuclear energy for decades we wouldn’t have been in half as much trouble as we are in now. But the oil companies won with their smear campaigns.
Renewable energy is cheaper now, but that wasn’t always the case. Also nuclear can be part of solving some of the issues with renewable energy. We can build massive battery banks and double our number of solar farms so that we have power when the sun goes down or we can reduce the need and incorporate nuclear
But for a stable network you need to account for times with no sun and no wind.
Batteries
If we had a stable and international network, there would be not a time without sun or wind.
Tell me, are the room temperature superconductors with us in this room now?
Building out capacity to transport a massive amount of energy over thousands of kilometers isn’t really that great either. Also, when it comes to night this is kinda not possible to avoid
You realise that the sun never goes away right? Half of the earth is illuminated 24/7
But half the earth is in darkness at once? You want to really transport solar energy across half the earth at mass?
I mean we do transport phone and internet signal all a roundthen world via big cables under the ocean already. That’s non an impossible challenge.
The goal of this technology is to reduce the volume of radioactive waste that requires deep geological disposal. Rosatom indicated that eliminating minor actinides could allow nuclear waste to reach radiation equivalence with the original uranium feedstock hundreds of times faster than natural decay.
I would love to ask everyone who opposes nuclear power one question. It’s a really simple question, you can Google it. I’ve never had an opponent of nuclear power answer the question, because it brings everything into perspective.
How much spent nuclear fuel is there in the entire world? What is the total amount of long term waste that the entire history of nuclear power generation has created? If you piled it up, how big of a pile would it form?
Ah, that must be why first world countries like France are trying to export their nuclear waste into third world countries, after they were forced to stop exporting it into Russia…
If it’s so safe, why have they been closing down every single high level waste permanent storage site over the last decade?
doesnt coal emissions have some radiation in it too?
IIRC, coal and gas plants give off more radiation per kWh than nuclear, it’s just that they dump it into the atmosphere along with millions of tonnes of other far more dangerous material.
For coal: into the air and settling into the land around the power plant. People who live near coal power plants are exposed to a lot more radiation than those who live near any other sort of generator
Nonsense, fision energy is expensive and dangerous.
Only in Germany there are over 12.000 tons of radioactive waste and nobody knows where to stored it secure for the next 100.000 years. It’s depending on third countries to import the needed Uranium Indestructibles containers in a geological stable vault is a bad joke, it don’t exist, at least not enough for all the waste, not even for the already existing. A nuclear reactor has a life span of ~50 years max, after this it need to be eliminated, a process of over 10 years for descontamination and elimination of more radioactive waste with a cost of billions of $, paid by the country, as said, by you, not by the company. Means 50 years energy and >50.000 years problems. Nuclear is the best, but only if we have an working fusion reactor, means, maybe in 10-20 years. Meanwhile the fision energy is sponsored by certain lobbies and the weapon industry, they are the real reason.
In Spain the energy costs for the user are ~14 cts/kWh at some hours even free (the lowest costs in the EU), thanks to the intensive use of renevable energy, blocked often by fossil and nuclear lobbies in other countries.
Nuclear is the best btw.
What’s the LCoE of new nuclear? What’s the LCoE when you add the cost of the storage mentioned in your meme?
Nuclear has been artificially made way more expensive than it should be.
For one part, why is it the only energy source that has to take care of its waste? (LCOE includes this cost, and I’m not saying they shouldn’t, I’m saying other sources should too.) Coal can spew waste out (including radioactive waste) and they don’t have to handle it. Wind just throws out blades and doesn’t have to deal with them. Etc.
The insane strictness on designs and safety are also far higher than they should be. A lot of its based on a linear no threshold model of radiation safety, which has been disproven., which dramatically increases costs.
Even still, LCOE for nuclear is pretty competitive in the US, and the US is one of the worst places for nuclear, as our dirty energy companies have easily been able to purchase laws to increase the cost of nuclear, so they can’t compete as much. Sort this by LCOE and see how many cheap nuclear is for most nations.
Lmfaoooo quality meme
Wow, I am truly surprised by the amount of angry comments this meme generated lol
Am I the only one that read this in the tongue-in-cheek “checkmate, atheists” tone because it looked like an intentional strawman argument?
I didn’t realize anti nuclear was so widespread. You are all propagandized to such a degree that I’m surprised you aren’t defending clean coal.
They’re gonna wash it!
I think the average person vastly over estimates how much waste is produced. If I recall the stat was that the entire world’s nuclear waste could fit in a football field. That’s really tiny.
Now find a football field sized area in a dry geologically stable location that is willing to take the waste.
Australia :)
I don’t think anyone has successfully negotiated nuclear waste import to Australia, though Australia does have some highly suitable locations
TBF, historically most nations allow “temporary” storage of spent nuclear fuel cells in perpetually filled pools or running water, which have the potential to run out and cause a nuclear apocalypse via irradiating everything on the surface of the earth. Currently millions of spent rods are stored “temporarily” in such pools which all together contain as much Cesium-137 as 30 Chernobyls in the USA alone.
It gets talked about a lot in “what if” scenarios about human extinction, because if Humanity died out then those pools will dry up and everything else will die alongside us.
some sources on this?
