113

UN atomic chief backs nuclear power at COP28 as world reckons with proliferation (apnews.com)

submitted 10 months ago by Stamau123@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The world wants more nuclear energy as a means to fight climate change and supply an ever-growing demand for electricity, part of a generational shift in thinking on atomic power, the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog said Thursday.

Rafael Mariano Grossi, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, made the comments in an interview with The Associated Press at the COP28 climate talks. He called the inclusion of nuclear power at the summit, where he said a major nuclear agreement was likely, showed just how far the formerly “taboo” subject had come decades after the disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

However, he acknowledged the challenge still posed for his agency in monitoring nuclear programs in countries, particularly in Iran after the collapse of its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers.

“This used to be easier when this international consensus was there and so Iran could see that this was not about political pressure, but a widespread approach that was to see a Middle East, one of the — if not the most — volatile region in the world, not to add to the mix the possibility of a country getting nuclear weapons,” Grossi said.

all 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Stamau123@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

Bit of an obvious conclusion, UN nuclear head says nuclear 'good', but at least it's being brought up in solution talks

[-] Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de -5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Nuclear power still is too slow, too resource-intensive, too unmanageable in the long term. There's better ways.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/11/first-planned-small-nuclear-reactor-plant-in-the-us-has-been-canceled/

[-] Fox@pawb.social 9 points 10 months ago

Could it be that a combination of ways is actually best?

[-] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

"If it ain't one size fits all it ain't good enough!"

[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's slow and expensive because of the legal red tape... Only with a nuclear power plant do you have ro have the ENTIRE specific site design done before you can even think of touching dirt, but it has to go through mandatory rounds of review and approval, too.

In what universe do you know of where several rounds of mandatory government inspection of just the plans makes anything go quickly?!

[-] Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 10 months ago

Slow in comparison to the possible upscaling of renewable energy sources. We need to get off fossil energies quickly to tackle climate issues.

[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The point is it is artificially slow. It does not inherently take many years to build a plant when they have general workable plans. Not any more than any other major construction, including renewables.

[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 4 points 10 months ago

Ever considered that that red tape exists for a reason? And that cutting it could have bad consequences?

[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Ever consider all the fear mongering nuclear got? The engineers know what they're doing. It's safer than fossil fuel plants and other dangerous industrial work these days. And no, all the ignorant fucks who are also afraid of nuclear that will vote you up don't make you correct.

[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 2 points 10 months ago

Nuclear engineers are the same people who helped create these regulations...

Nuclear is really safe today, thanks to those regulations. We've changed and improved those power plants a lot in the past half century. I don't consider safety a real issue anymore, but if we cut all red tape and regulations, then it does become an issue again. That's nuclear engineers saying so by the way, not "ignorant fucks".

[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 0 points 10 months ago

Those nuclear advances are what makes nuclear feasible under the new regulations. Those regulations that prohibit the older, less safe designs. But those old designs are also cheaper. It's why the vast majority of the least safe reactors are in the former Soviet Union; they had to be built en masse, and it had to happen cheap.

Goverments around the world would still be building the cheap unsafe shit if it weren't for nuclear scientists aggressively recommending stronger regulations. It's also why it's always politicians and other idiots who advocate removing those regulations, and not the nuclear scientists who actually know what they're talking about.

Nuclear also isn't slow to build just due to regulations. South Korea is an example, where they built plenty of reactors with build times of approximately 5 years each. They still have regulations and red tape, but they also heavily standardised their reactors and their manufacturing. But most western countries just want to build one or two or so, and that just means doing a lot of work that you can't copy from anywhere.

Nuclear is best done in bulk and in collaboration with others. The EU could for example launch a nuclear initiative to build say 100 reactors all across Europe, which would allow us to take advantage of building at scale. But you'll never convince anyone of that if you come at them with your unnecessarily hostile attitude. It's people like you who chase people away from nuclear. You don't bring any arguments, you demonstrate no knowledge of the subject at hand, just empty sentences and name-calling.

Convince, don't insult.

this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023

113 points (94.5% liked)

World News

38861 readers

2169 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

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

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

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

quinten@lemmy.world

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world