• PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well if you don’t support nuclear because its “too complex,” you de facto support coal, which will inevitably turn into “degrowth” as most of the world can’t support agriculture anymore, and so you will get to nod your head as 100’s of millions are “de-growthed” into starvation.

      • Ooops@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nothing in general. Well the build times are rediculous in Europe and planning right not to build nuclear soon is too late already for any agreed upon climate goal. But that’s another matter…

        The problem is the brain-washed nuclear cult on social media briganding everything. In the last year on Reddit you couldn’t even post any report about any new opening of wind or solar power without it degenerating into always the same story: “bUt ReNeWaBlEs DoN’t WoRk! StOrAgE DoEs’Nt ExIsT! tHeY aRe A sCaM tO bUrN mOrE FoSsIl FuElS! gErMaNy KiLlEd ThEir NuClEaR To BuRn MoRe CoAl BeCaUsE ThEy ArE InSanE!!”

        Mentioning the fact that Germany in reality shut down reactors not even contributing 5% of their electricity production that were scheduled for shutdown for 30 years and in a state you would expect with that plan and already more than replaced by renewables got you donwvoted into oblivion every single time.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Reality is uncomfortable for the idealist. But ultimate any sustainable future MUST include nuclear and everything you sarcastically dismissed with that childish spongebob typing is just the reality of our world society. You may as well get upset about how we didn’t leave the “reality stans,” back on reddit.

          In fact, I should turn this back on you, I’m upset about the coal-stans that apparently migrated over here from reddit. If there is any world where you want to claim to be “green,” coal CANNOT be any part of the conversation. If it is, you have failed and don’t’ get to discuss environmentalism anymore.

      • Arcturus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Poor track record with safety (not talking about the big issues such as meltdowns, but smaller issues such as minor leaks, and workplace incidents). Nobody’s interested in building them unless they’ve got profit guarantees and subsidies from the government. Nobody’s interested in insuring them in full (unless it’s the government). Nobody’s interested in the eventual decommissioning process, which can take a century, and again, still costs. Renewables will be up and running, and profitable, long before nuclear is constructed.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you see the environment as just another way to profit, and you assume that we can’t save the environment because it costs too much, you are just another shitty fossil fuel executive, but worse because at least the fossil fuel executives get paid for their short-term ideas, you are just supporting them and thereby standing by as hundreds of millions of people are condemned to death, hopefully including yourself, for literally nothing.

          • Arcturus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            So, you’re going to spend, billions, to build a nuclear powerplant, that will decarbonise at a slower rate, never turn a profit, be an economic sinkhole megaproject, or, you could just build a solar panel or wind turbine in like, a year, where it’ll be functional and working. Profits allow you to reinvest into more projects. Losses, mean you’re putting endless amounts of money into less.

            • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Again if you are worried about “turning a profit” you don’t give a fuck about the environment and need to leave.

              • Arcturus@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                If you’re constantly pouring money into a loss-making industry, it means you’re not efficiently managing your resources to build more projects. Profits from renewables can be reinvested before a single plant can’t be constructed. And that nuclear plant, will never make enough profit to build another.

                • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  What the fuck is the point of “making a profit?” The world is burning because of profits. If all fossil fuel plants were taxed at 1,000,000 Million per ton of carbon emissions would you support nuclear then?

      • Ooops@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The usual fantasizing about nuclear and failing any actual plan, very popular right now. Because nuclear lobbyists pay well.

        Or more precise: They want to build more nuclear power. But of course all their planned and their existing nuclear combined will not even be remotely enough to cover just the minimal required base load in a few decades. Because changing most of our primary energy demand (industry, heating, transport in varying shares) to electricity (that is often only making up 20%+ in a lot of countries) will massively increase the demand.

        If you are not building (or planning to start the build-up very, very soon) enough nuclear capacity to cover 80% or more of today’s electricity demand then you will not have the minimal base load required in 2-3 decades, because there will be an increase by at least a factor of 2,5 in demand.

        But that’s not something you tell people as nobody has a clue how to pay for building even more nuclear (where “even more” means the actual needed amount)…

        (A few exceptions with massive hydro potential aside -as they have access to that cheaper base load- there is exactly one country with a plan that works mathematically: France. And even their government is lying to their people when they talk about 6 new reactors with another 8 optional. Because the full set of 14 is the required minimum they will need in 2050 and onward (their old ones are not in a state to run mcuh longer than that).

        But hey. Even the most pro-nuclear country and the one with a domestic indutry actually doing a lot of the nuclear build up for other countries can’t tell their population the trutz about costs and minimla requirements. If you want to know just onme thing about the state of nuclear, that this should be it.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Who the fuck are paying nuclear lobbyist? Do they even exist? Like is “Big Nuclear” real? Can I get a job there? I’d love to get paid a shit load to go to the same dinners fossil fuel executives go to, but I’d get to actually advocate for something worthwhile and that would improve life in the future.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What a fucking joke. It’s amazing how all these countries set weak goals for themselves and then fail anyway.

    We’re all going to die lol