Yeah. Why would people in Japan be sensitive to potential faults in nuclear power plants.
1
Maximum_Indication2 days ago
Yeah, only irradiated a few towns and made them unlivable.
0
ninjakos2 days ago
+6
They will start also posting maintenance findings for next shift now?
6
wrosecrans2 days ago
+7
Imagine if anybody bothered to report "The coal power plant belched a massive cloud of toxic smoke today." You know, when something harmful actually gets out into the environment and causes negative health impacts for humans, it's a non story. But if nothing harmful was actually released, Oh No, Front Page News!!!11!!1
7
auchinleck9172 days ago
-4
A tens of kilometers radius around Fukushima became a no-entry zone, and tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of people were evacuated, but the same thing is not being done to thermal power plants.
-4
MetalBawx2 days ago
+3
Yes, yes the standard fearmongering in an article about the safety system working exactly as intended.
Get new material.
3
auchinleck9171 day ago
-2
For people who haven't experienced the dangers of that earthquake and nuclear disaster, it's understandable that they would consider it someone else's problem.
\-Also Toden is so corrupt and Japanese doesn't trust on them about their nuclear plants. Last time they said we are fully prepared, but the result was a nuclear disaster. In japan if you lose your trust once, you could never gain your trust again.
-2
Reqvhio2 days ago
+1
ever since covid im still wary of these nothing-burger seeming news. all it takes is one after all D:
1
umo2k2 days ago
-18
Completely normal phenomenon. Build those thing everywhere in the world. You’d be happy to live next to one, right?
-18
sarges_12gauge2 days ago
+10
I wouldn’t want to live next to any power plant, but if I had a choice yeah I’d 1000% rather live next to a nuclear plant than coal or natural gas
10
umo2k2 days ago
-3
Fine. What about renewables?
-3
Saffra92 days ago
+4
I would definitely prefer to live near a nuclear plant than a similarly powerful power generating renewable farm. Its the difference between that big building over there generates power verses everything you can see from the top of that big hill is generating the power.
4
gluefire2 days ago
+2
You can't live near a similar powerful renewable farm. Such a thing does not exist. The alternative is more people living near much less intrusive renewable power generation in a much bigger area.
2
Discount_Extra2 days ago
+2
like the solar panels on my roof?
2
TrainDestroyer2 days ago
+15
Hell yes! More nuclear. Nuclear power is a critical step towards renewables and is a hell of a lot cleaner than coal or natural gas. Plus the amount of waste that's an actual danger is incredibly small, plus we know how to actually contain it (if politicans could get off their asses and build the long term storage facilities)
Also because I want an excuse to use the analogy and I know you're thinking of it. Nuclear power is safe, it turns out that when you keep the fire in the fire pit, and keep flammables you don't want to add to the fire away from the pit its safe. Meanwhile people are saying we should BAN fire entirely because some idiot decided to make a fire in a poorly made pit, and then proceeded to add a ton more wood to it all at once and it flared up and burnt down the woods.
15
umo2k2 days ago
-12
If the amount is so small, why are all countries working heavily on searching proper storage facilities? And if that stuff isn’t dangerous, why dont you offer them to keep it in your basement, that tiny amount?
-12
CrazyBaron2 days ago
+6
Rofl countries aren't searching, they making proper solutions to the point where fuel can be reusable.
6
umo2k2 days ago
-11
Yes, which one?
-11
CrazyBaron2 days ago
+5
Reusing it, and at worse safe storing it in volumes that have less waste than production of "renewables" that just get released out rofl.
5
TrainDestroyer2 days ago
+5
Because countries would rather have a permanent solution? People would rather have a freezer to store their frozen goods than a fridge that'll not do as good a job. In Nuclear Waste's case they're looking for an area with little to no groundwater in a geologically stable area with preferably thick stone in a remote area to limit human contact. As for the stuff not being dangerous, sure. I'd take a parking lot amount of Nuclear waste if it meant keeping the industry going. Any waste that's a case of "Dangerous for 10,000 years" is hazardous in the sense of "Still radioactive" ignoring that in order for something to emit radiation it must split, and that let's say 10 tons of nuclear waste taking 10,000 years to turn into 5 tons means that its splitting VERY slowly.
5
CrazyBaron2 days ago
+5
Sure, pollution from the road next to your house probably effecting you more and you don't b**** about it so far.
5
umo2k2 days ago
-4
You compare nuclear pollution with „roads“? Sure.
-4
Pocok52 days ago
+5
A large road is provably a massive increase in lung issues, cancer rates and stress due to noise pollution, whereas a nuclear power plant emit absolutely jack all pollution. The only tangible ongoing issue with nuclear is that river cooled plants increase the river's water temperature downstream and if not handled well it can affect the fish or cause algae problems.
5
Myrang3r2 days ago
+1
What the f*** is “nuclear pollution”? There is zero pollution from a NPP, living next to an even moderately busy road affects your healt many, MANY times more.
1
myselfelsewhere2 days ago
+1
Do you not understand how the vast majority of thermal power generation works?
Are you terrified of kettles too?
1
West-Abalone-1712 days ago
-6
But they're 100% reliable 24/7 power and this is the sole reason why we should ban solar and wind power everywhere and build nuclear instead. Surely one shutting down unexpectedly and forcing fossil fuel plants to restart is front page news and not something that happens weekly, right? Right? /s
-6
[deleted]2 days ago
+6
[removed]
6
P01135809-Trump2 days ago
I'm pro nuclear, but it's just fully unworkable. The biggest give away to this is China, where they hedged their bets and have spent the last decade building, as you say, all three (They went hard on new fossil fuels aswell). Both fossil fuels and nuclear are fast falling by the way side.
In big handfuls, for one or two GW of nuclear, it would cost $20 Billion, require massive government support, and come on line in a decade or two.
For the same money, private equity could build multiple times the capacity in solar with grid forming battery storage and have it fully operational in a year or two. Furthermore, by the time the nuclear plant is half built and still requiring more money, the solar would have paid for itself and released enough equity to build a second equal sized project.
Nuclear is great on paper. In reality, it's just a slow burn money sink that the fossil fuel industry is hoping can delay the rollout of c**** renewables.
0
Master-Shinobi-802 days ago
+1
There are zero examples of a country deep decarbonizing with just solar and wind. So if the goal is to have a clean electrical grid then nuclear is a must.
Maximizing shareholder profits seems to be your priority.
>fossil fuel industry is hoping can delay the rollout of c**** renewables.
First only building solar and wind guarantees a place for fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.
Second the entire antinuclear movement was funded or even founded by the fossil fuel industry.
1
The_Jack_of_Spades2 days ago
+1
> In big handfuls, for one or two GW of nuclear, it would cost $20 Billion, require massive government support, and come on line in a decade or two.
China builds 6 gigawatt-scale reactors for less than that. This was announced today:
https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/construction-begins-on-fourth-taipingling-unit
> The Taipingling plant will eventually have six Hualong One reactors, with a total investment exceeding CNY120 billion (USD17 billion).
CNY 20 bn has been the standard cost per new unit in China since the start of the decade.
1
P01135809-Trump22 hr ago
+1
Ok, so at China prices..... how much solar can you build for CNY 20 bn?
At about CNY 3.45 per watt, you get about 6GW of solar for each GW of nuclear.
My point stands.
1
West-Abalone-1712 days ago
-2
The pro nuclear parties in Sweden, Canada, the USA, Australia, Germany, and Poland (among many others) all made active attempts to block wind and solar.
And the mythical unreliability of wind/solar and mythical reliability of nuclear are used as justifications.
No credible person in 2026 suggests new nuclear for non-military reasons. It's entirely a disingenuous conservative wedge issue. Be a reasonable person.
-2
Master-Shinobi-802 days ago
+5
>No credible person in 2026 suggests new nuclear for non-military reasons.
Yeah that's just not true. There are zero examples of a country deep decarbonizing their grid with only solar and wind. Zero!
>It's entirely a disingenuous conservative wedge issue
Climate change and global warming are notorious as being a conservative issue.
>Be a reasonable person.
I am. You're not. Emotional opposition to nuclear energy has gotten us this point. Maybe you should be reasonable.
5
West-Abalone-1712 days ago
> Yeah that's just not true. There are zero examples of a country deep decarbonizing their grid with only solar and wind. Zero!
There are zero examples of "deep decarbonizing". There are many examples of getting further with less hydro without nuclear in the mix, and nothing other than pro-nuclear politicians banning wind stopping others from following.
> Climate change and global warming are notorious as being a conservative issue.
Trying to stop action against it is, yes.
> I am. You're not. Emotional opposition to nuclear energy has gotten us this point. Maybe you should be reasonable
Günther Klätte, while intentionally sabotaging a wind project to buy social license for nuclear: "We require Growian [in the general sense of large wind turbines] as a proof of failure of concept", and he noted that "the Growian is a kind of pedagogical tool to convert the anti-nuclear energy crowd to the true faith".
This is the extremely irrational, emotional belief system of the pro nuclear movement and it hasn't changed in 50 years. Believing if they just steal another pension fund, or sabotage another wind farm somehow magically the opposite of what happened the other 700 times will happen this time.
0
[deleted]2 days ago
+3
[removed]
3
West-Abalone-1712 days ago
+2
> Sweden, France, Finland all deep decarbonized their grid with nuclear energy.
Country != grid and there are dozens of countries that "deep decarbonized" on wind and solar by any definition under which sweden or finland "deep decarbonized" on nuclear. All three countries rely on the european grid for backup and flexibility and all three have hydro.
2
taquci2 days ago
-2
780MW of unexpected drop in what is supposed to be "baseload" is a news
-2
improbable_humanoid2 days ago
+3
Yeah, a local interest story.
3
taquci2 days ago
then it's a low output
0
Eyadish1 day ago
+1
Not really. Kind of standard to stop reactors for these reasons. 780 MW is also not super much in a whole system.
It's a local (national, but not for ordinary citizens) new thing, because it kind of shakes up the price balance market
1
FreddyandTheChokes2 days ago
+39
Breaking news: safety systems in working order.
39
kleintott2 days ago
+3
I hope no lizard will be exposed to that stuff
3
heyo_throw_awayo2 days ago
+1
*Marine iguana
1
Loose_Skill66412 days ago
+5
I wonder how long after Chernobyl it took for media to stop every 5 seconds making a story about a Soviet reactor
5
OscarF2P1 day ago
+1
All outages are a big deal. If they ran nuke plants the way listnook wants them to. They'd never make it between refueling cycles without an outage. Everything should be inspected and maintained. Why this was missed is a question that will be asked and should be asked. I wouldn't want any of you guys near any sorta of management for nukes.
1
Many_Professions2 days ago
+2
Steam leaks are no joke. I had a co-worker that used to work at a nuclear plant tell me when they were looking for steam leaks they would have to wave broom handles in front of where they walked because the leaks could be basically invisible but if you broom handle was cut in half then you would know where it is.
2
Eyadish1 day ago
+3
Nuclear reactors don't really use superheated steam, so it's not really invisible but hard to spot.
But yeah, waving a broom in front to find a leak is for sure true. Even use it for steam leaks on traditional boilers but we have superheated steam.
Leaks are very loud, so you don't need to way it all the time. It's more about when you know the area the leak is at.
Also unsure about cutting in half. I heard stories like that during my education too, but nothing like that yet. But our boiler is like half the pressure compared to a nuclear
3
Travellogra2 days ago
Japan technology is top-class. I hope they recover it quickly.
52 Comments