this post was submitted on 05 May 2026
344 points (81.6% liked)

Science Memes

20129 readers
2776 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/68257855

Nuclear is the best btw.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] far_university1990@reddthat.com 1 points 8 hours ago

Why people here argue about cost or energy potential or resource mine of nuclear? Meme only about fossil waste extremely normalized?

[–] LilithElina@literature.cafe 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is a joke, right? I grew up near one of those "safe" underground disposals and it's a disaster. Why risk that when there are so mich cleaner optional available today?

[–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 2 points 1 day ago

nuclear waste vs lead and iron

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

doesnt coal emissions have some radiation in it too?

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 4 points 23 hours ago

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.

[–] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 49 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Nuclear is the best btw

Naw. I was once enrolled in an Energy/Climate-focussed Masters degree, and scientific consensus for the goal generally seemed to range from "mostly renewables + a tiny bit of nuclear" to "all renewables". Nuclear feels like this amazing hack but it's expensive, and the storage problem, while sometimes overstated, is also often understated or falsely misrepresented as solved.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de 56 points 2 days ago (21 children)

Forcing nuclear down our throats while renewables are a thing is so wild. And people actually defend nuclear.

You want mining of sparse minerals by workers in inhuman conditions? Check

You want a contamination which will exist for longer than the oldest human build structure? Check (because the barrels you made made indestructible, just dont test this pls)

You want centralized energy way more expansive than solar or wind? Check

There are literally no upsides of nuclear against renewables and a battery.

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] bobo@lemmy.ml 23 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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?

[–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 day ago

because it was evil green radioactive goo in simpsons

[–] A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

because ppl act over irrational fear and lobby their politicians to close perfectly safe sites.

[–] bobo@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Riiiight people are protesting for no reason...

The French government has yet to authorize Cigéo's construction, and now the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) and the Institute for Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) have raised concerns about the design. Although it acknowledges overall progress, IRSN questions whether the sealing would be a strong enough barrier and says ANDRA needs to do more to reduce the risk of radioactive leaks. The agency also needs to improve its strategies to monitor risks and to rehabilitate the facility in case of radioactive spills, IRSN says. Perhaps the biggest problem, however, is medium-level radioactive sludge immobilized in bitumen, or tar, a technique introduced in the 1960s that has now been abandoned. IRSN says that in case of fire in a tunnel, bituminized waste could rapidly overheat and burn. “We would risk creating a phenomenon that we don't know how to stop,” and trigger “a very substantial” release of radioactivity into the environment, says François Besnus, director of IRSN's Environment Division in Fontenay-aux-Roses. Both agencies say ANDRA and the producers of nuclear waste need to study treatments that prevent overheating; if that fails, a major redesign of the facility may be needed.

...

Others say the risks are simply too high. Radiation will break down water in the rock and cause corrosion of metal structures, leading to the release of explosive hydrogen gas, says biologist and engineer Bertrand Thuillier, an associate professor at the University of Lille. ANDRA plans to ventilate the tunnels, but that could exacerbate fires by providing oxygen, he says. A failure could be catastrophic, Thuillier warns: The area around Bure helps provide eastern Paris with water and is close to one of the world's most cherished wine regions, Champagne.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.357.6354.858

Edit: and just so we're clear, this is "the biggest, most complex and costliest nuclear decommissioning and radioactive waste management programme on earth." With planned cost between 23 and 54 bilion €

[–] bobo@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 days ago

Trust me bro, nuclear power is clean, I read it on reddit or some shit idk

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 63 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (9 children)

“Indestructible”?

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Thanks for the laugh, pal.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 38 points 2 days ago (14 children)

Get lost with your expensive nuclear energy. Renewables produce MUCH cheaper energy.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 7 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] Therms45@europe.pub 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

pro-nuke when you tell them nuclear energy is fossil fuel energy: 😡

*wind and solar are unarguably the best energy sourcrs, and the only sustainable ones.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 days ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Cypher@aussie.zone 35 points 2 days ago
load more comments
view more: next ›