248
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 57 points 1 month ago

Yeah, because it'll tie budgets up for ten years building it, and in the meantime all the fossil fuel people can tap those final nails into our coffin while they line their pockets.

[-] leisesprecher@feddit.org 35 points 1 month ago

Ten years? More like twenty. Hinkley point C was started in 2013, supposed to be finished 2023. This year the estimation was corrected to 2029-2031.

[-] Womble@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Counterpoint: UAE went from zero nuclear energy to producing as much as Denmark or Portugal produce renewables in ten years. From a base of zero nuclear expertise in the country.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

And even if they do finally build it, it's still a centralized system that regulatory-captured monopoly utilities can gouge the public on.

Solar and wind threaten them by being decentralized as well as by not relying on fossil fuels.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)

Perfect. Now that renewable technology is finally cheap and quick to build, the oil and gas lobby is trying to redirect attention to nuclear, which takes decades to build in most places.

[-] maevyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 1 month ago

We can do both. There’s nothing preventing us from doing both, and the most effective way for the oil and gas lobby to get what they want is to divide us.

If pro-renewable people say “we must only have renewables, nothing else!” It makes us seem like ideologues. If we seem like ideologues, moderates get confused because they think “well I do like to hedge my bets and try all things out.” And pro-nuclear advocates (who are all over the spectrum) get louder, complain more, and swing more moderates and politicians back toward nuclear and away from renewables. Then you can repeat the cycle in reverse.

The conservative trick is not to substitute something that doesn’t work for something that does. It’s to keep us divided, blaming each other, and going back and forth between different solutions so often that we never get anything done. Chaos is a ladder.

A decade ago, two decades ago, I was all for nuclear.

But something that takes 20 years from start to finish isn’t going to cut it when we’re already nearing 1.5 degrees.

[-] maevyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Again, we can do both. This is not a zero sum game, there are nuclear physicists and people who are passionate about nuclear who will either be working on nukes, OR pivoting to software engineering so they can make money on the crypto/AI/whatever boom. I have met them.

The enemy is not the person who wants to build a parallel solution to the same problem. The enemy is the person who says “oh oops, there’s just not enough money 😬 we gotta fund only one, which one should we do? Figure it out and then we can move forward, in the meantime we’ll just keep using these fossil fuels.”

They are playing us with divisive politics. My expectation if we fund both is one of the following happens:

  1. We reach 20 years from now, and between storage breakthroughs and renewables scaling out we are 100% renewable capable. We stop construction of new nuclear plants, we keep the few that came online for a while and then we decommission. We win.
  2. We reach 20 years from now. We have made significant progress on renewables and storage, but we still haven’t been able to replace base load entirely. Storage breakthroughs didn’t happen, and we have to keep funding more research. In the meantime, we’re able to decarbonize and rely on nukes instead of fossil fuels. We win.

Hedging bets is smart in all cases, especially when it’s not a zero sum game. Don’t let them divide us.

Agreed. I was never saying it was, but that oil and gas companies are pushing nuclear instead of renewables because of this very reason.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Womble@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

That kind of thinking was wrong a decade ago and is still wrong now. If we have any chance of stopping climate change we are going to have to massively decarbonise not only electricity production, but also transport and heating. That's going to mean a massive electrification of those sectors and a huge increase in demand over decades. Putting off large fixed investment now as it wont help out immediately but will help significantly during the time that electricity demand is growing is just nonsense.

[-] Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org 6 points 1 month ago

We can do both.

If you have a set amount of money and resources to invest renewables are almost exclusively the better choice. Investing in nuclear instead means it will take even longer for us to wean off fossiles. That's why it's so useful for the oil lobby to support nuclear.

[-] 11111one11111@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Jesus is this honestly how you think the world works? Oil is lobbying for their competitor? And why the fuck would any of these unfounded scenarios mean we couldn't, as citizens, push for both cleaner power options?

[-] maevyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago

We don’t have a set amount of money and resources, fundamentally.

We have an abundance of food, water, and shelter.

We have a lot of smart people who are currently spending their lives making money on made up markets and apps.

We have plenty of steel, concrete, and any other resources that would be in contention.

When it comes to money, if we raised taxes just a little, we’d be fine. I’m kind of an MMT person, but point is, we could get money, print it, tax it, etc. as it’s an abstraction on top of the other things above.

The mindset of “it’s gotta be one or the other” is a false choice presented by the fossil fuel industry and conservative politicians. They say we can’t raise taxes and we can’t increase deficit spending so they can get us to fight. And I guarantee you, if we all agreed to do nuclear, they would flip the script and start investing in renewables, because what they want is to kill momentum. After all, who do you think was behind all the scare mongering after three mile island?

I don’t want to kill momentum for renewables, but I want to start building it for nuclear at the same time.

We can do both.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Wilzax@lemmy.world 48 points 1 month ago

If America hadn't responded to Chernobyl with fear of atomic power and instead adopted a "this is why communism will fail, look how much better we can do it" attitude, the climate crisis would be a non-issue right now

[-] oyo@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

As an engineer, Chernobyl is terrifying. It was close to being 10x worse than it was. The thought that capitalism could do it better is the height of hubris. If you think your technology is fail-safe, nature (including humans) will find a better way to fail.

There are many reasons besides safety that nuclear makes no sense. Others have listed them here. But this recent hand-waving away of safety is frightening. Saying that our technology today is so much better while anti-intellectualism is running rampant. Saying facilities could always be staffed by experts while our political system is more unstable than ever. Thinking that we could store waste for 10,000 years when humanity has never built something that has intentionally survived a fraction of that time.

The downside of this equation is just too severe. Nuclear plants are uninsurable for a reason, and by default are insured by the public. That cost is ignored in the equation, because it's too large for even the biggest insurance conglomerates to consider.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Orbituary@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago

About fucking time.

[-] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 month ago

We've postponed nuclear for +40 years, causing climate change to get further and further out of hands.

Thanks Greenpeace /s

[-] chaogomu@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Greenpeace funded by the Rockefeller family trust. Literally.

And Friends of the Earth funded by Atlantic Oil.

The 1970s were full of oil companies throwing money at environmental groups who were anti-nuclear.

Except the money kept rolling in for decades.

[-] StraponStratos@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

How disappointing.

Renewables and storage are far superior, in almost every conceivable metric it’s not funny.

Yet we let conservatives hype up nuclear garbage and carbon recapture as the solution to climate change.

[-] joyjoy@lemm.ee 19 points 1 month ago

Still better than coal in every way.

[-] StraponStratos@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 1 month ago

Right so if you’re moving off of coal, the cheaper and better option (renewables) is the right move.

[-] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

Not really, not right now it isn't. If you want to cover baseload with wind and solar you'll need energy storage. We haven't got a solution that scales well, yet.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] maevyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 1 month ago

I just don’t see it in terms of fundamentals. We’ve heard this for years, yet countries that have denuclearized have not been able to go full renewables, they have become more dependent on fossil fuels. Storage has just not been able to keep up with demand, baseload is still necessary, and we don’t have other options.

We should absolutely keep investing in renewables and pushing forward, they help. There is no reason at the same time to prevent investment in nuclear and other non-carbon emitting solutions, and if tech companies are willing to foot the bill we shouldn’t complain. Every gigawatt counts at this point.

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

We’ve heard this for years, yet countries that have denuclearized have not been able to go full renewables, they have become more dependent on fossil fuels.

Which countries are you referring to? Germany for example denuclearized and replaced them with renewables, they didn't become more dependent on fossil fuels (even if people like to say that).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File%3AGermany_electricity_production.svg

[-] maevyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Japan for one, whose coal and natural gas consumption has gone up significantly: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan

Germany has stayed fairly steady, fair enough. Imagine if they had just focused on replacing fossil fuels instead of nuclear, they would be nearly carbon free by now.

I have no problem with the majority of funding going to renewables and making progress right now, but I also don’t see why we can’t break ground on new 4th generation nukes and continue investment in nuclear research at the same time. We can hedge our bets, make progress on both. If the 100% renewables + storage plan pans out, cool, we stop the nukes. If they don’t, then cool, we have our carbon free baseload production and we aren’t a decade behind on it when we need it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

I used to be pro-nuclear and I am still not worried about the safety issue. However, fissile material is still a finite resource and mining for it is an ecological disaster, so I no longer am in favor of it.

[-] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 month ago

As someone who isn't well versed on the topic, is the impact from mining fissile material worse than the impact of mining the stuff we need for batteries and storage of renewable? Big fan of renewables, and not trying to start some shit. Trying to learn. Lol

[-] leisesprecher@feddit.org 11 points 1 month ago

Batteries can be made from literal saltwater nowadays.

Otherwise, lithium mining is certainly not exactly good for the environment, but can be managed. Uranium (even the non-fissile) is pretty toxic and can contaminate the whole area.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

fissile material is still a finite resource

We have reserves that will last centuries, and it can literally be extracted from seawater just like lithium if the economics allow for it. Can't comment on the mining impact, though. Is it any worse than rare earth metals?

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[-] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

People who think Nuclear is very safe and impossible to fuck up forget they will have a government department called Doge being run by a fuckwit

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Nuclear plants are far from the only public hazard if he's actually going to go into places and derail them personally.

[-] solrize@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

From November 15.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
248 points (89.7% liked)

World News

39376 readers
2175 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