this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
1810 points (98.2% liked)

World News

38979 readers
2551 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (28 children)

"Nuclear power scares me"

Welcome to the result. It's sad, because nuclear power was the way, but instead we propegandized against it and continued to use it as a boogie man.

Ignoring the fact that coal and natural gas still hurt and kill people daily, ignoring there's over 400 nuclear power reactors that are still active, 93 in America... But no.. "Chernobyl" and the discussion ends.

Also Chernobyl was a 50 year old design, and happened 40 years ago, involved multiple human errors ... nah can't consider things have changed since then.

Now we have people using another nuclear plant in Ukraine as an example, and again the fear rises. They're trying to weaponize the plant, but somehow it's "Nuclear power" and not the fact some fuckheads are planning to destroy it in a destructive fashion that's the problem.

Somehow dams that would be devistating to destroy are given a pass, but hey Nuclear power, so scary.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Chernobyl was a 50 year old design, and happened 40 years ago, involved multiple human errors ... nah can't consider things have changed since then.

Things have indeed changed, now construction regulations are far tighter. This is good because the risk of a Chernobyl event is far lower, but at the price of extreme cost overruns and project delays

Ignoring the fact that coal and natural gas still hurt and kill people daily

So is it better to start a nuclear project and hope it can start reducing coal & NG emissions 10 years from now? Or is it better to add solar and wind capacity constantly and at a fraction of the price per MWh?

There was a time when nuclear was the right choice, but now it is just not cost effective nor can it be brought online fast enough to make a dent in our problems

Somehow Dams that would be devistating to destroy are given a pass, but hey Nuclear power, so scary.

I think you're forgetting that once the waters from a dam break dry up you can rebuild....a nuclear accident has the potential to poison the land for generations

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's people like you who present a false dichotomy that are the really evil people in the world today.

We can do solar, wind and nuclear. One does not preclude the other, contrary to your false dichotomy.

In fact, we must build out a minimum level of nuclear - it is the only mandatory technology required to stop climate change, because it works 24/7.

We can add as much solar and wind to the system as we would like, as long as the grid can handle it.

Grids with a lot of hydro will not require much nuclear, e.g. Iceland can do entirely without it and Sweden only needs a small amount. Grids with little hydro will need a lot of nuclear, like France.

This was true in 1990. It is still true today and it will still be true in 2050.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Budgets are a real thing. If you tie up $28.5 billion constructing say, the Vogtle #3 and #4 reactors, you are taking away significant amounts of money that could have already produced working wind and solar installations that would produce far more power. Stating that reality doesn't make me "evil," get a grip.

Additionally, with upgrades in high voltage transmission lines and grid-level storage systems the need for nuclear or fossil fuel baseload in the future is going to be far less than you expect

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Obviously, regulations must be changed to make nuclear affordable.

But yes, misguided people like you and those who opposed nuclear in the 90s are causing a mass extinction even that is gearing up to become the biggest in the history of the planet.

If that isn't evil, then I don't know what the term evil means anymore.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)