56
Not a single one (thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Legianus@programming.dev 44 points 2 weeks ago

Even if this were true, would that be important nowadays? If it can push out climate change and make it into a problem to solve later (in case of fission). Fusion would be great though

[-] Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 2 weeks ago

It can't. It takes WAY too long to build, and for what it is the whole work isn't worth it.

The volume of renewables and batteries (Incl. Sodium-Ion, great tech for the grid) we can produce outpaces nuclear by a long shot, is safer, cleaner, available quicker, easier to install, easier to regulate (once the batteries are up, it's a combo deal) and especially more "for the people" (you can carry and install smaller units of solar and wind anywhere).

I also thought nuclear (fission) made somewhat sense a few years ago, but it really doesn't in any way shape or form. Countries who're dead-set on nuclear such as France are already running into SO mamy problems. They're building a huge financial pile of shit for the current and next generation to be fucked over by.

[-] Bashnagdul@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

Why not do all of these things. Build nuclear power plants, do battery storage, do renewables, carbon capture, plant trees etc, etc, etc. if the goal is reverse, stabilize or slow climate change. There isn't 1 silver bullet, we need to do all the things.

[-] yakko@feddit.uk 6 points 2 weeks ago

Because money is finite. There's a good rationale for diversity of renewables, but at some point you have to look at the cost benefit analysis and let some ideas go. We could maybe harvest some energy from dropping gold bars into the Mariana trench, but it would take away money from better ideas.

[-] guy@piefed.social -2 points 2 weeks ago

In a cash based capitalists society yes. Time to take the step towards a non scarcity world!

[-] DeckPacker@piefed.social 3 points 2 weeks ago

Then resources and labour would be finite. You can't just escape scarcity.

And anyone who confuses the problems with capitalism and currency is an idiot and their economic arguments should not be taken seriously.

[-] Legianus@programming.dev 6 points 2 weeks ago

I wasn't talking about building new ones. I agree with that. But the ones that already exist shouldn't be shut down until they are replaced by renewables.

[-] grandel@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago

If it can push out climate change and make it into a problem to solve later (in case of fission).

Pushing all the problems nuclear brings to the future is the exact same mistake past generations have done with fossil fuels.

If we don't combat climate change now, we never will.

[-] Legianus@programming.dev 2 points 2 weeks ago

I wouldn't say it is identical. Nuclear is far easier to solve. The waste is really not that impactful in comparison to climate change

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

and we're clearly not

[-] Gladaed@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

The sentiment that people should just pay more than they have to become virtuous is hatred of the poor.

We must provide the cheapest power to the people. And cheap in this case is meant as cheapest including externalities.

This view on it is the exact reason why i made this meme, this shit has to stop its a tale propagated by the fissile fuel industry.

this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2026
56 points (58.8% liked)

Science Memes

20802 readers
1311 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS