• slazer2au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    010 months ago

    Aww I thought the back was going to say Steam Power.

    Because that’s what it is.

  • Raphaël A. Costeau
    link
    fedilink
    0
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Deep level irony that you used a Simpsons meme, which takes place in a city that suffers from a Nuclear Power Plant that doesn’t dispose of nuclear waste properly.

    Every form of energy generation is problematic in the hands of capital. Security measures can and are often considered unnecessary expense. And even assuming that they will respect all safety standards, we still have the problem of fuel: France, for example, was only able to supply its plants at a cheap cost because of colonialism in Africa. Therefore, nuclear energy potentially has the same geopolitical problems as oil, in addition to the particular ones: dual technology that can and is applied in the military, not necessarily but mainly atomic bombs.

    __

    Also, I thought memes were supposed to be funny…

  • @WallEx@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    010 months ago

    Renewables are better, cheaper and more scalable. Its not even close. Look at Denmark for how it can be done.

  • @Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    010 months ago

    lol nuclear is really uneconommical, way too expensive and therefore really inefficient. You need 10-20 years to build a plant for energy 3 times more expensive than wind. For plants that still require mining. That produce waste we cannot store and still cannot reuse (except for one small test plant). For plants that no insurance company want to insure and energy companies dont like to build without huge government subsidies.

    I know lemmy and reddit have a hard on for nuclear energy because people who dont know anything about it think its cool. But this post is ridiculous even for lemmy standards.

  • @TurboHarbinger@feddit.cl
    link
    fedilink
    010 months ago

    ITT: ignorant people with 20+ years old knowledge.

    Nuclear energy has been safe for a long time. Radioactive waste disposal is better than ever now.

  • @BlanK0@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    0
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I would rather see more investment on better renewable tech then relaying on biohazard.

    You would be surprised to know the amount of scientific research with actual solutions that aren’t applied cause goes against the fossil fuel companies and whatnot. Due to the fact that they have market monopoly.

  • @originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    010 months ago

    Nuclear power relies on stable, safe, and advanced nations not like, I dunno, starting a land war in Europe that threatens to flood the continent with fallout.

    • Cows Look Like Maps
      link
      fedilink
      English
      010 months ago

      A concern of mine is the increasing prevalence of natural disastors as global warming worsens. Our plant and storage location may be safe now but natural disasters will be way worse and in unexpected locations as we’re already seeing.

    • @someguy3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      010 months ago

      The US better be careful of all those land invasions from Canada. All those NATO countries that live in the largest defensive alliance ever, that are threatened by Russia who couldn’t invade one of Europe’s poorest countries. China could be invaded at any moment by the Mongols.

  • @Ibuthyr@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    010 months ago

    But we don’t really have it now, which is the main problem. In the time it takes to build these things (also for the money it takes), we could plaster everything full with renewables and come up with a decentralized storage solution. Plus, being dependent on Kazachstan for fissile material seems very… stupid?

  • @Gerprimus@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    010 months ago

    Nothing about nuclear energy production is good, sensible and safe! You are dependent on a finite resource, you have to put in an incredible amount of effort to keep it running. Not to mention the damage caused by a malfunction (see Fukushima and Chernobyl).

  • @then_three_more@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    0
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Just because it’s safe doesn’t mean it’s the best we have right now.

    • It’s massively expensive to set up
    • It’s massively expensive to decommission at end of life
    • Almost half of the fuel you need to run them comes from a country dangerously close to Russia. (This one is slightly less of a thing now that Russia has bogged itself down in Ukraine)
    • It takes a long time to set up.
    • It has an image problem.

    A combination of solar, wind, wave, tidal, more traditional hydro and geothermal (most of the cost with this is digging the holes. We’ve got a lot of deep old mines that can be repurposed) can easily be built to over capacity and or alongside adequate storage is the best solution in the here and now.