Obligatory fuck stonetoss
Damn, I was unaware of the artist. Indeed, fuck Stonetoss!
Fuck stonetoß
Nuclear is easily the best path forward and even when you consider events like Chernoble, the harm on humanity is vastly dwarfed by what coal has done to us.
Johnny Harris and Big If True have a great video discussing fear and actual nuclear impacts. The only factor it lacks mentioning is how much land fossil fuels takes up. Each year, fossil fuels infrastructure distroys more land than Chernobyl and fukushima combined.
Agreed, except Johnny Harris routinely has no idea what he is talking about and does a horrible job at explaining factual content. He does tell an incredible story, however.
and instead of building plants with learnings from those events we continue to do nothing with nuclear, relying on ever aging tech and facilities. id love to see small nuclear reactors or some of the other designs being put into use. we also need to spread renewables around as well. if every house was its own powersource and onl relied on the grid for backup things would be cleaner.
I doubt nuclear alone would suffice to power our civilization. Of course, you didn't say that.
Oil has been quite easy energy source enabling complex supply chains and I don't think we can change them to electric or nuclear powered ones.
We've had a horrible track record on waste disposal. Climate change is the result of our failure to dispose of CO2 from burning fossil fuels and that's also why I'm wary of us dealing with nuclear waste.
It's been mathematically proven that it could power our entire planet multiple times over for centuries. The waste created from nuclear power is much easier to keep from entering the environment than coal/oil.
It's factually safer and more efficient. You're just spewing corporate fear mongering designed to keep oil barons in control.
Gross nazi comic
Kurzegesagt had a good video about this too. Talks about the pros and cons of nuclear along with other alternative energy sources.
Me, i'm just wondering why no one is calling China out for its claims of creating a star fusion reactor yet we see nothing for it.Here's my problem:
-
I've been lied to by capitalists so many damn times about 'the next big thing' thats going to solve climate change, at this point they all look like they are full of shit.
-
I know the nuclear industry says its clean now, and it certainly SEEMS true, but natural gas and coal and oil companies are also claiming to be clean now so WHAT THE FUCK? We know some of them are lying.
-
Endless energy from the sun sounds damn good on paper and its clearly a threat to capitalists 'centralize everything' plan which locks us all into their electrical grid systems
-
The REAL problems aren't even discussed which is that we (the USA) can't expect to keep living this way, our consumption is off the charts. It's wild that in 2023 we still have a car & airplane-based transportation systems that barely utilizes high speed trains or buses, and results in paving half our land with asphalt which traps heat and makes absolutely everything worse in a cycle.
Two things that keep me from supporting additional nuclear: 1) Cost. Show me the actual cost per unit energy for nuclear, and show me the cost trajectory. Now do the same for SWB (solar-wind-battery). I know for a fact the latter is decreasing rapidly year over year. 2) Until all nuke plants can recycle their fuel, and with ZERO global long-term geologic repositories in operation, nuclear has a waste problem that can last 20,000 years.
The problem is that the nuclear evangelists refuse to engage in real debate about the downsides of the technology. Every valid criticism or suggestion that other alternatives are a better investment is brushed aside, often with a side of name calling.
The reality is that renewables are much more scalable and cost effective in the long term than these massive infrastructure projects. Nuclear is fine. We should have been building it for the past 50 years. The reasons we didn't build it are dumb. But it's simply an outdated paradigm now. Investing a billion dollars and ten years in building a power station now just doesn't make sense when you could invest that money in better future proof tech like microgrid solar.
The problem is always evangelists of some stripe who have arrived at a solution without any at scale testing, and want to implement their solution 100% without any system feedback. Terrible way to design anything meant to function in reality.
On your third point, it can be argued that solar panels still allow capitalists to centralize everything. Solar panels use a similar production process to microchips which is something they can just make as expensive as they can, it's not like people can rebel and make homebrew solar panels. Remember when there was a "chip shortage" for no reason so they made all the chips and graphics cards really expensive?
-
I got banned from reddit because I posted about how clean and safe nuclear was on /r/nuclear, was instant banned from the sub and stupidly logged in with another account I had and continued the rational conversation I was having wit a couple people. I'm glad this space is pro nuclear.
Doubt tbh, r/nuclear is a pro nuclear sub. You were probably banned from that shit hole that is r/energy.
Ah you are right it was that.
I’m glad this space is pro nuclear
I don't think that's necessarily true. I just think people won't jump down your throat for daring to have a different opinion.
Made up alliances?
Basing on the US since that is where my MS studies in environment policy were focused. Conservative republicanans poll highest in believing climate change is fake or not caused by human activity
From the same article, you can see that support for expanding nuclear energy is stronger among liberal republicans and strongest with conservative republicans.
*Pew research is not a scholarly source on its own, but scores center for media bias making it optimal for readers without academic library access
Oil and gas companies being in an 'alliance' with climate change activists is a pretty made up notion, even in the context of constraining the entire scope to just a stance on nuclear energy.
There may be opposition to nuclear but to make the bridge over to being an ally of oil and coal would be... well, stonetoss level of improper framing of an issue.
Hell, anecdotally speaking for my own experiences on the topic: nuclear energy has been the most consistent common ground between climate change activists and deniers that I've seen. Far more than the precise zero climate change activists ive seen actively supporting oil, gas, or coal interests. There is support renewables, not obliquely opposing nuclear.
