88
[Discussion] Are you pro or anti nuclear energy? Why?
(thelemmy.club)
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 12 Aug 2026
88 points (93.1% liked)
Anarchism
3231 readers
105 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
Other anarchist comms
- !anarchism@slrpnk.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- !anarchism@hexbear.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.ml
- !anarchism101@lemmy.ca
- !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
On the uneconomical aspect, this isn't really true. Yes, it's uneconomical to build an old reactor in the modern world. However, that's by design, not necessity. It isn't inherent to nuclear reactors that they are expensive.
They're expensive because of a bunch of hurdles we make them jump through that other sources of power get to skip. This is on purpose, to ensure they can't out-compete the existing energy companies that have all the money and power. As an example, no other power source has to account for all of its waste. Even renewables create waste they get to just ignore and let third-world countries deal with. The level of safety is also ridiculous, which raises costs. It's potentially safer than even many/most(/maybe all, if scaled properly) renewables.
As for outdated, I have no idea what this could even mean. Care to explain? There are new reactor designs. If you mean old designs are old then sure. If you mean the source of power itself does not function anymore, then that's absolutely insane.
Authoritarian? Sure, I guess. Our whole grid is the. As an Anarchist, sure, I'd prefer people to generate the power themselves. However, efficiencies of scale mean this isn't the best option short-term. We need to get off of dirty energy ASAP. Even solar benefits from scale. Kwh/$ is better on solar farms than an individual house. But also, micro-reactors are becoming a thing. They generate too much power for an individual house, but they do allow for localized power generation with nuclear.
I wish nuclear power operators had to accout for all their waste, but that isn't true at all. And the rest of you comment is equal levels of ignoring reality.
Exactly, and nuclear energy is the opposite of that. It takes decades to build and those non-existing micro-reactors are the latest investor scam that make evel less economic and technical sense than regular sized reactors.
What do you mean? What waste isn't accounted for? Do you mean water vapor? That's the only thing you could mean. The vast majority of the "nuclear waste" volume is stuff like protective gear, because even that is thrown away after using it once, because there's that much aversion to risk. They have to account for damn near every atom.
If you'd like to make an actual rebuttal, you're going to have to try harder. You aren't even making any specific claim, but just saying I'm incorrect broadly with no detail. You look silly.
It does not take decades to build a nuclear reactor. It takes decades to deal with the bureaucratic red tape that is designed to keep us using fossil fuels. Reactors used to be built in less than 4 years. Most are built in 6-8 years, and very few take more than a single decade, let alone multiple. This is a silly myth spread by energy companies to prevent nuclear support, because it'd kill their business.
Now, tell me how this is wrong. I've given you the data. If you want to rebut, please give details so it can be discussed, otherwise you prove you don't have an argument.
If you base your argument on fan-fiction then there is little point in discussing this further 🤷
The safty regulations were put into place because they proved to be necessary due to serious (and costly to repair) construction defects found in all of those reactors that were put up in such a short time. And not a single operator of a nuclear power plant will ever pay for the storage costs of the nuclear waste, because as with fossile fuels that is almost entirely externalized to the society at large and future generations.
"Fan fiction." I'm the only one who provided sources. Fucking idiot...
They are literally paying for their waste. Look at the satellite view of a reactor. You can see the casks usually. No, there are not negative externalities involved. There's no radiation leakage and there's no danger posed. Almost no one has been harmed by a nuclear reactor, and even the disasters there was more damage done by evacuation than the actual radiation.
You're the one living in a make-believe world here. You've made zero verifiable claims so far. Presumably why is because, as soon as you do, you'll be fact checked and proven wrong. You're making yourself look silly while insulting me. Please, make a claim that can be checked or fuck off. You're making everyone dumber.