World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Can someone fill me in on why this website is so insanely pro nuclear energy?
Like, I’m not even fundamentally against it but I don’t understand why we should invest billions in a tech that has essentially been leapfrogged already, would take a decade to become relevant again and is more expensive per KW/h than both renewables and fossil fuels.
Yet every comment criticizing nuclear on Lemmy always (literally every time) gets buried in downvotes. It’s super weird.
It's the go-to strategy for fossil fuel companies to stay in the market as long as possible
They know it's not possible, they don't want to build new ones but the discussion alone is slowing down renewables and makes it less likely that the current fossil power plants can be shut down soon.
Nuclear power has some nice properties (and a whole bunch of terrible ones), is technologically interesting, and has been the premier low-CO₂ energy source for a while. That gets it some brownie points although I agree that it shouldn't be sacrosanct.
I personally am mainly interested in using breeder reactors to breed high-level waste that needs to be kept safe for 100,000 years into even higher-level waste that only needs to be kept safe for 200 years. That's expensive and dangerous but it doesn't require unknown future technology in other to achieve safe storage for an order of magnitude longer than recorded history.
There's a whole bunch of very good questions you can ask about that approach (such as how to handle the proliferation risk) but the idea of turning nuclear waste disposal into a feasibly solvable problem just appeals to me.
Of course I expect an extreme amount of oversight and no tolerance for fucking up. That may be crazy expensive but we're talking about large-scale breeder deployment. It's justified.
I'm pretty sure it's a campaign or people who are influenced by it. It started years ago on reddit. All of the sudden a perceived majority was pro-nuclear. It really happened in the span of a few weeks or maybe 1-2 months.
I'm not the only person who was dismayed by winding down nuclear power worldwide after the overblown situation at Three Mile Island. Then Fukushima caused another scare that could have been prevented, and turns out was not even that severe. If we had continued working nuclear at pace, while winding down fossil fuels we would be in a better situation environmentally now.
Nuclear is less expensive and more scalable than solar, wind, hydro.
It does not boil the planet like fossil fuels.
Yes it takes time and money to set up, but that's a short term cost.
This is assumed to be widely known, so critical questions that don't take that into account are assumed to be either in bad faith or laziness.
How is it less expensive then solar??? Are you using solar panels from 1970?
It has always been highly subsidized. And there is also cost to keep it working. Fuel rods and people... And if you include "persistent waste storage costs" and force them to pay money into a fund that will be used in case of a rare catastrophy, combined with the prediction of solar getting cheaper and cheaper, no one with the intention to gain money would invest in that.
Nuclear power is slow and rigid. And it is absolutely uneconomical in the long run.
It's neither.
More scalable is hilarious. They take like 10 years to build and cost 18 billion dollars to get 1GW steady state.
Meanwhile, we can whip out 1GW of solar in 2yrs for 2 billion, and do it in modular sections. You don't have steady state, but you could build solar out to compete with enough battery and high voltage transmission lines, with basically zero nuclear hurdles. It would cost, but it is viable now and much faster, and that's with current tech. Batteries and panels are just getting cheaper and better.
The LCOE for nuclear is substantially higher than wind and solar. It’s not just upfront costs.