89
[Discussion] Are you pro or anti nuclear energy? Why? (thelemmy.club)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
110 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Anti. I really think we should figure out the waste first. I know there are arguments that it's better even with the waste, but you know that's how we get ourselves into bad situations down the road. Meanwhile there seem to be a lot of buildings around that could house wind and solar without even consuming more landscape.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Realistically though you should compare the waste it produces to the waste from coal plants, which produce about half a billion tons of fly ash per year. I'd argue this is order of magnitude more harmful than nuclear waste. New (read: worked out in the 1960s and then forgotten) nuclear tech also uses the waste to produce more energy. The waste also doesn't fly into the air like coal waste.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    Realistically though you should compare the waste it produces to the waste from coal plants,

    Why? Nuclear is not competing against coal, it's competing against renewables

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    It is in developing economies. India and China are still building coal plants in addition to renewables.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Not quite. China is planning less coal capacity but existing contracts are still being built. They're not ramping up construction afaik. https://globalenergymonitor.org/research/china-hits-brakes-coal-power-permits-constructions-remain-robust

    Most countries of the global south, when faced with the option coal vs nuclear, will err toward coal due to the far lower cost and weaker infrastructure. Nuclear is simply not that attractive an option if you're a poor country.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    And who said they were ramping up? I don't get what you're arguing here or why. Yes, coal plants are much easier to build than nuclear.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    And who said they were ramping up?

    What else would it imply to state that Nuclear is actively competing against coal? If they're not ramping up, then it's not an argument because they're not currently choosing new coal over nuclear.

    Yes, coal plants are much easier to build than nuclear.

    Which is why nuclear is not really competing against coal in the global south...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent