782
Spicy Air ☢️
(thelemmy.club)
Nuclear is the best btw.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 May 2026
782 points (90.2% liked)
General Memes & Private Chuckle
937 readers
492 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
Nuclear is only safe under the constant management of a stable global society. We don’t live in a stable society so I don’t support nuclear.
Fossil fuels aren't safe even with constant management and a stable global society.
It's very hard to kill millions with solar panels
But not impossible, if we try.
Solar powered attack drone.
It's not that hard.
Yes but historically speaking, an oil fire doesn’t render the area immediately uninhabitable for thousands of years.
As long as we don’t light oil on fire constantly all over the planet and let it burn for decades, we’re gonna be fine.
Historically speaking, the cumulative effect of lighting oil on fire is set to make the entire planet uninhabitable, permanently.
It won't be permanent, it'll just be noticeable in evolutionary time. Think K-T or End Permian events not the collapse of the magnetosphere. Mind you that's really bad. Like, I'm comparing this to the death of the non-avian dinosaurs and an event called the great dying, with our best case scenario being an extinction event more reminiscent of those demarking minor change in evolutionary era, it's really fucking bad. But there's reasonable hope that a small spattering of species of various types (except megafauna, we're fucked) will survive and adapt.
But the production and burning of it releases just as much radiation and causes just as much cancer. (Actually more.)
Nuclear doesn't either. It's just that we're much safer (and made more scared) or radiation. We're overly cautious. It's actually been shown that a little bit more radiation than background may actually be good for you.
(Edit: Watch this before you downvote: https://youtu.be/gzdLdNRaPKc)
Three mile island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl are pretty much safe. (Chernobyl is slightly more dangerous, because there's the potential for hot debris, but that's unlikely at this point. If you're careful, it's safe. If people were to live there, it'd be safe wherever they are, as they'd ensure there's no hot objects.) The last reactor at Chernobyl shut down in 2000, meaning they were working there and operating it for decades safely after the disaster. Three mile Island was operating until 2019 safely, and since there have been plans made to bring it back online.
Doubt
Watch this video before you doubt it without looking into it. The sources he uses are listed in the description.
https://youtu.be/gzdLdNRaPKc
That feels kind of all-or-nothing. Environmental issues are part of the problem destabilizing societies. Overall, the poisoning of the environment is much worse and much less contained with fossil fuels than with nuclear power. Distant future societies might have no knowledge of nuclear storage sites and a few people might even die before they realize they need to stop breaking into the underground barrels. But a lot more people will die from the environmental havoc that we're causing with fossil fuels. And they can't just stay away from the barrels to avoid that one.
Just to be clear, I think wind and solar (and geothermal where appropriate) are the best ways to get off of fossil fuels. They've gotten a lot cheaper than nuclear so it doesn't make much sense to build new reactors. But it also doesn't make much sense to shut them down if nuclear waste is the only issue.
I agree but also think that we should build both nuclear and renewables. Because we dont have much time left.
Of course. Why wouldn't we use both?
Just like a financial portfolio, our energy ecosystem is only safe if it's well and proper distributed. Excess energy can be stored, or simply routed to ground, programs that incentivise energy use during unexpected peak periods already exist, there's absolutely no reason not to over-plan and engineer it just to avoid shit like what goes down in Texas almost every year...
I like your thoughtful take and that you didn’t leap to the assumption that I support fossil fuels. Renewables are the way, and we had renewables (windmills and such) before we had electricity.
...O ...K ... nothing is going to destabilize global society as badly as the collapse of crop growing cycles due to fossil-fuel-induced climate change.
Anything we can do to reduce burning fossil fuels is going to improve global stability.
Yes, but why waste time and effort with a stopgap like Nuclear when we can just go to wind and solar that we already have the tech for?
Bonus, the more its used, the more we learn, the better it gets for efficiency and ability to manufacture.
Nuclear is not a stop gap. It's a solution.
Both things can be true. The comment you're responding to literally does not mention FF.
Does it need to? That's the alternative we're talking about, whether it's mentioned specifically or not.
Wind and solar are great and have become so good in the past decade that they're more cost effective than everything else, but they still aren't applicable everywhere, most often due to real estate requirements. Nuclear reactors are bulky too, but nothing compared to the amount of space you need for solar arrays or wind turbines to generate an equivalent amount of electricity. For the places where wind and solar can't fit, it's fossil fuels or nuclear.
That's the alternative you're talking about. Straw men are such mark-ass bitches, right?
What alternative do you propose?
Solar and wind?
I already addressed those.
true, sorry, skimming the thread
Not really, no. It is safe pretty much regardless. On-site caskets are bomb proof and contain waste safe enough that it wouldn't make sense for a dirty bomb. Though if you really care then we can just stop considering mountains sacred and instead starting burying the waste as we have planned and fully considered all pros and cons towards 70 years ago.
fossil fuels aren't safe no matter the state of global society
I really hate people thinking all of nuclear is light water reactors
Why have all safety measures when half do and we save money for shareholders!
"I want change but it should be immediate with no transition".