this post was submitted on 05 May 2026
317 points (81.0% liked)

Science Memes

20125 readers
1491 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
[–] LilithElina@literature.cafe 10 points 15 hours 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 1 points 14 hours ago

nuclear waste vs lead and iron

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

doesnt coal emissions have some radiation in it too?

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 2 points 6 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.

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 7 points 1 day 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.

[–] bobo@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 day ago (4 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 14 hours ago

because it was evil green radioactive goo in simpsons

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 44 points 1 day ago (7 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 (7 replies)
[–] Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de 52 points 1 day ago (20 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 (20 replies)
[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 36 points 1 day ago (11 children)

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

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Therms45@europe.pub 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 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.

[–] A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

it isn't tough, fossil fuel implies hydrocarbons, as that's where the fossil part comes from.

Nuclear fuel is non renewable but it is also clean.

[–] i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's clean regarding chemical waste.

I've helped build nuclear waste caskets, nothing is perfect but the amount of attention put into making it safe is incredible! The layers (and quality) of stainless steel welds would put your average steel bridge to shame....

But fission will always be limited (as in non-renewable). If everything was powered by nuclear, I'm sure we'd see even more awefull mining operations. Also, fusion should in theory be much better, if the thermodynamics of it end up working.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 56 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (9 children)

“Indestructible”?

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Thanks for the laugh, pal.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 day 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)
load more comments
view more: next ›