Nuclear is the best btw.
this post was submitted on 04 May 2026
552 points (90.0% liked)
General Memes & Private Chuckle
909 readers
418 users here now
Welcome to General Memes
Memes for the masses, chuckles for the chosen.
Rule 1: Be Civil, Not Cruel
We’re here for laughs, not fights.
- No harassment, dogpiling, or brigading
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
- Keep it light — argue in the comments, not with insults
Rule 2: No Forbidden Formats
Not every image deserves immortality on the memmlefield. That means:
- No spam or scams
- No porn or sexually explicit content
- No illegal content (seriously, don’t ruin the fun)
- NSFW memes must be properly tagged
If you see a post that breaks the rules, report it so the mods can take care of it.
Otherwise consider this your call to duty. Get posting or laughing. Up to you
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nuclear isn't the best anymore. Batteries, solar and wind are cheaper and take way less time to build
By $/kwh, green energy is some of the most efficient on the plant. By $/sqft, nothing tops nuclear. That's why we're not throwing sails up on aircraft carriers.
Transitioning from bunker fuel to nuclear batteries on commercial ships would be a huge improvement to the global fleet. That's something we can't expect solar/wind to match.
Ok, but these are things that we don't need, that are literally murdering people and destroying the planet.
There must be a better example.
These are big boats that need large amounts of power to cross vast oceans. You could say the same about any number of merchant vessels, which primarily consume bunker fuel. If you could operate an oversized sailboat to manage bulk shipping cheaper than the current models, people would do it in a heartbeat.
Take your pick.
That's true, aircraft carriers and stealth submarines use nuclear power, but still prohibitively expensive for the shipping industry. Commercial shipping is picking up on wind with flettner rotor systems, sails and kites, it's still only modestly decreasing fuel use but future ships could take more advantage of wind.
Not sure what the future will look like but it could be that some type of redux flow battery and electricity could be used to power commercial ships. I'm pretty sure at some scale the redux flow system could save costs after energy prices drop.
Don't forget, that they produce immediately useable energy. No heat loss, due to steam turbines.
And then there is the timespan that nuclear waste stays harmful. OPs "indestructable" container have to stay indestructable for millions of years.
If we assume 40 years as a generation, that will be 50,000 generations. The whole history of mankind is only 400 generations.
Edit: Added sources for everyone unable to use the Internet for its intended use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#cite_note-3
Half lifes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_plutonium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_uranium
Estimating a generation of 40 years was generous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_time
History and pre history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history
More like between 30 and 1000 years. Still a long time but you're being pretty hyperbolic suggesting millions.
The time radioactive waste must be stored depends on the type of waste and radioactivity.
The back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle, mostly spent fuel rods, contains fission products that emit beta and gamma radiation, and actinides that emit alpha particles, such as uranium-234 (half-life 245 thousand years), neptunium-237 (2.144 million years), plutonium-238 (87.7 years) and americium-241 (432 years), and even sometimes some neutron emitters such as californium (half-life of 898 years for californium-251). These isotopes are formed in nuclear reactors.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#cite_note-3
Talk about pulling numbers out of your ass...
Half-life refers to the time it takes for a radioactive isotope to decay to half its original quantity. This process is not linear but exponential, 10 half lifes are necessary to reach only 0,1% of radioactivity.
Plutonium-239, a highly toxic isotope with a half-life of 24,100 years. Plutonium-239 would still retain 12.5% of its radioactivity after 72,300 years.
Uranium-235: has a half life of 703.8 million years.
All these isotopes are byproducts of nuclear energy production.
These timespans are geologically relevant. There cannot be an estimation about the changes that occur in these.
Sources: Half lifes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_plutonium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_uranium
Estimating a generation of 40 years was generous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_time
History and pre history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history
q. e. d.
And they already exist in the planet. It's not like these materials are magicked into existence. They're already here.
We refine it. We use it. Then we put the used material back into the ground, in a place that's probably safer and more out of the way than it was before it got mined.
We purify the material, yes.
If the ore grade is lower (e.g., 0.05%), you’d need ~280–300 kg of ore per kg of U-235.
When a hypothetical water contamination would occur in a natural deposit with a 0.05% density, it would contaminate water less than if it would occur with a purified source.
"The dose makes the poison." You may have heard the proverb.
The higher the dosage, the higher the potential health risk. Which is exactly why the purified material is so much more dangerous than the natural occuring sources.
You also assume controlled environments, deep in old salt mines. Have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory#cite_note-VCR_2003-02-19-33
"Lopez described the cleanup of the heavily polluted sodium burn pit, a six-acre site where Rocketdyne disposed of massive amounts of radioactive waste. The modus operandi included chucking barrels of radioactive sodium into the sludgy pond and firing a gun at the canisters, which would then explode, releasing radioactive contaminants into the air.Lopez said that the pit has now been excavated ten to 12 feet down to the bedrock, resulting in the removal of 22,000 cubic yards of soil."
They did so, because the barrels wouldn't sink to the ground of the pond.
There isn't even a guarantee, for correct disposal. One could pocket life changing money by chucking barrels into the sea, today.
But that was not my point, my point was we cannot assume a controlled environment, even to the best of our abilities and knowledge, in timespans we haven't even been able to measure our own history in.
I am not totally against nuclear energy, it has the highest energy density possible. Heavier atoms aren't stable enough. The periodic table ends with these elements for a reason.
But the potential dangers, stemming from them are unimaginable. Because they exceed our very own existence as a species.