[ SECRET POST #5888 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5888 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.




















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 41 secrets from Secret Submission Post #843.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

It's not a large part but it's still a part. The amount of emissions we need to reduce is very large, and reducing individual traffic is relatively easy to do compared to a lot of other things, and there are other reasons besides emissions to do it.

And where do you think all the electricity for those oh so clean electronic cars and trains comes from?

I mean.... the whole point is that we do have ways of generating electricity that are not fossil fuel-based. We have wind and solar which are growing really quickly, we have nuclear, and we have hydro.

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

Oh yes, the super clean, not at all highly toxic nuclear energy.

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.... so....

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

DA

The amount of mis/disinformation around nuclear energy is staggering, and I admit I have no idea how to counter the emotional urge to reject any fact checking around nuclear power.

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

Such as the misinformation that coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste you mean?

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Not necessarily, although that particular bit likely stems from the lack of regulation around coal ash storage and disposal, which does present more opportunities for contamination and long term health issues.

https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/09/02/Researchers-find-radioactive-contaminants-in-coal-ash/7841441211980/

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

I know this - but the fact is that people (like airt) take these reports to mean that coal ash and waste around coal plants is more radioactive than nuclear waste which is entirely false.

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

Be careful what you call misinformation.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2022-003567_EN.html

https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-wastes-coal-fired-power-plants

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/43/035/43035329.pdf

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste/

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

I never doubted that, I know this. The misinformation is, as anon above stated, that "Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste" which no. No it fucking is not.
Quoted from one of the very articles you posted: "As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage."
So no, nuclear waste is still much, much higher in radiation. It's just shielded, unlike coal ash.

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

No it's not. Nuclear waste properly shielded has less radiation than coal ash but in a lot of places it is not properly stored and shielded and also, accidents happen and once the protective casing is damaged, the radiation is insanely higher. Also the waste around coal plants is more radioactive than around nuclear plants, because the nuclear plants are much, much better protected/shielded. Stop misinterpreting/parroting misinterpreted data.
And nobody said coal is better, are you daft?

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

It's not fossil fuel based. It doesn't cause air pollution and global warming. The original post was talking about where the electricity for electric cars come from. Nuclear power is one answer to that question: it's a way to generate electricity for electric cars that doesn't involve fossil fuels and doesn't contribute significantly to global warming and air pollution.

Obviously, nuclear power also has problems. IMO those problems can be successfully managed and mitigated. I definitely think that nuclear is conclusively better than coal or gasoline, and replacing coal-based electric generation with nuclear-based electric generation is absolutely a positive change, even though at the same time you wouldn't want to power the entire electric system with nuclear (also IIRC nuclear and solar/wind are complementary to each other).

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

The thing is- isolating just the energy production of nuclear power plants from the huge, huuuge rats tail of the nuclear waste it produces is a faulty argument. It is a highly destructive energy source - just not during production (if everything goes well and there are not major accidents that is).

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

Even if you're very pessimistic about our ability to store nuclear waste, it's still a less pronounced problem than the negative externalities associated with fossil fuels especially coal.

Coal is a really bad fuel source in terms of pollution and we should absolutely prefer nuclear to it, even though nuclear also has big problems. We should prefer solar and wind to nuclear, but it's still a positive tradeoff to replace coal power with nuclear power.

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

But nobody, absolutely nobody ITT argued that coal was in any way shape or form a good thing??

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

But what then is the argument?

If we agree that coal is bad then we should replace it. Where possible it should be replaced with solar or wind but there are technical reasons why it's difficult to replace 100% of coal with solar and wind - 1, there's fluctuation in how much energy is produced by solar and wind at different times, so it makes sense to have another energy source that's constant to provide baseline power; 2, putting solar and wind in place is more location-dependent than nuclear, and doesn't work everywhere; 3, we want to get off coal as quickly as possible and there's practical limits to how quickly we can increase solar and wind so it makes sense to build nuclear as well to speed up the transition.