171
Zack Polanski says application of Zionism is racist and no state has right to exist
(www.theguardian.com)
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 18 Oct 2026
171 points (96.7% liked)
United Kingdom
7001 readers
207 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Why does he always do this.
I agree with what he says up to a point, but then he always says something else and I'm like, no I don't agree with that bit, that bit is stupid.
It's like every time.
It just seems to be the green parties MO, it's like the stupid argument around nuclear power stations, with the green saying you can power everything with renewables, no you can't, of course you can't, stop saying that, it gives ammunition to the opposition when you say stupid things like that.
You threw me there, what can't be powered by renewables?
It's not about what can't be powered by renewables it's that everything can't be powered by renewables all of the time.
The big advantage of nuclear power is that it works 24/7, it doesn't produce pollution, it's wasted by product is something that can be dealt with and doesn't have any environmental impacts, and it's well understood technology that has worked for nearly 100 years now and we'll still be reliable into the future. It gives us a nice stable based work from.
People are so scared of nuclear power because they don't understand it, and so the Greens have taken the stands that there against it too. Not only does that risk our energy security but it's pandering to ignorance something no party should be doing let of all the greens that are supposed to be progressive.
Germany would like a word about that. We do not know how to deal with the waste, we don't even know how to properly store it until we figure out what to do with it.
Also: obviously mining uranium comes with a lot of pollution with massive environmental impact.
Hey he said no the glowing stuff is safe
Batteries have sorted that. We just haven't installed enough yet. The combination of renewables and batteries is better than nuclear by every metric.
Uranium has better energy density than any battery.
And the density of the space needed to produce energy with it vs a battery?
The density of space? I don't follow. 1kg of uranium produces about 10^7 times more energy than 1kg of lithium batteries.
Uranium is denser than batteries too, so 1kg of uranium takes up less volume than 1kg of batteries. Is that what you meant?
Edit: sorry I was being slow. Yes, since uranium is 10 million times more energy dense than batteries, the infrastructure will be smaller than that of batteries for the same amount of energy.
That's fair enough, my only reservation with nuclear is how much runway it needs for rollout, I know some firms have wanted to standardise with a basic unit of nuclear power sort of thing, but that's also taking a long time. I've also seen promising work done in cheap grid storage, so for my money that's going to be a better "decarbonise immediately, if not sooner" solution.
But nuclear is fine too imo, long-term. Didn't the greens evolve slightly on that too? I think I heard they're just going to treat it as another option to weigh on the merits, which is probably their way of saying "we're not NIMBYs, but it doesn't beat wind and solar".
Well, if your comment isn't a self-illustrative example of this I'm not sure what is.