this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
579 points (90.8% liked)

World News

39211 readers
2017 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The best time to build them was decades ago, so clearly the second best time is to... Never? Your argument is taken straight from the oil and coal industries -- it would take too long to build up renewables infrastructure, so let's just not do it? We shouldn't build windmills, because you can't tell me how many we need globally?

You're grasping at straws. If you care about climate change, and you trust in science, there's only one valid viewpoint on nuclear energy. I welcome dissenting opinions however and would be more than happy to hear why you disagree. Just know that I took courses in college on nuclear reactors and their design as part of my degree, as well as environment engineering, and I currently work in the green energy field -- by no means am I automatically correct, but I want to see an argument that's based in science and recent scientific studies and analysis, let's say anything past 2015.

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The best time to build them was decades ago, so clearly the second best time is to… Never? Your argument is taken straight from the oil and coal industries – it would take too long to build up renewables infrastructure, so let’s just not do it? We shouldn’t build windmills, because you can’t tell me how many we need globally?

You seem to be unaware of the plans and needs to reduce GHGs. We do not have decades to waste.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You're right, and that's why it would be foolish to build exclusively nuclear. It's also foolish however to not build any nuclear. The long lead time means we need to start ASAP so it's ready ASAP. With proper government action targeting bottlenecks in the process (I believe there's only one manufacturer in the world for a certain type of reactor shielding) we can speed that up.

Diversification is the way to go. At the very least, we should build enough reactors and breeder reactors to consume existing nuclear waste and drive that to effectively 0.

On top of all that, the bottleneck for deploying solar and wind en masse isn't actually solar and wind facilities (although we certainly need those) but our electric grid. It needs an upgrade in order to integrate alternative energies, and I believe estimates on doing that are ~10 years. We might end up in a situation where a nuclear reactor is actually faster to build, depending on the type.

[–] rusticus@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I could not disagree more. Renewables are cheaper safer easier to deploy and secure the grid. Nuclear is dead.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nuclear is the safest energy. It has the fewest deaths per kWh produced. Some modern reactors are able to consume nuclear waste to generate fuel as well. If you want to minimize nuclear waste, we need to build at least some reactors to shove existing waste into.

[–] rusticus@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nuclear keeps our already unsafe grid more unsafe. It’s too expensive and accidents, while rare, are disastrous. Nuclear is dead.

[–] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

WTF are you talking about. You can't just claim it's unsafe and it makes the grid unsafe. Nuclear is INCREDIBLY SAFE. Other than a few disasters that happened decades ago it has the lowest deaths/kwh. And it won't help contribute to the BILLIONS of deaths that are coming due to climate change. Your fear of some Chernobyl disaster is irrational.

[–] rusticus@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I'm talking about grid security. https://www.tripwire.com/state-of-security/problem-us-power-grid-its-too-vulnerable-attacks

The solution is decentralization, which for the most part is solar and wind. Ironic that you are learning about this on a decentralized social media platform.