• Broken_Monitor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    The number of people who still think nuclear is bad and solar / wind will make up for it is really depressing. We could have had an unrivaled nuclear power infrastructure but those NIMBY assholes stopped it 50 years ago and now we rely on extending existing plants past their lifetimes while running in fucking circles about how to save the planet. Has anyone who wants to “go green” without nuclear ever looked at the power output of these things?? It’s not even the same league! AaagggghHhHhhhhhhhh

    • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The problems with nuclear power aren’t meltdowns, but the facts that it often takes decades just to construct a new plant, it creates an enormous carbon footprint before you get it running, it has an enormously resource-intensive fuel production process, it contributes to nuclear proliferation, it creates indefinitely harmful waste, and even if we get past all of that and do expand it, that’s just going to deplete remaining fuel sources faster, of which we only have so many decades left.

      It’s not a good long term solution. I agree we should keep working plants running, but we can’t do that forever, and we still need renewable alternatives - wind, hydro and solar.

      And it wasn’t some nebulous group of NIMBYs that worked against nuclear power, it was the fossil fuel lobby. I don’t know why people keep jumping to cultural explanations for what is clearly a structural issue. The problem isn’t some public perception issue, but political will, and that tends to be bought by the fossil fuel lobby.

      Also there is good science on why we actually can switch to entirely renewables: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/23/no-miracles-needed-prof-mark-jacobson-on-how-wind-sun-and-water-can-power-the-world

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Suspect a lot of those NIMBYs were led by fossil fuel producers in a NIMBY hat…

    • cooopsspace@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      The problem with nuclear is it gives fossil fuel giants a free pass to try speedrun killing the planet before it even arrives.

      If we plan for nuclear, we plan to do nothing for 50 years.

      • Rakonat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about. Nuclear displaces fossil fuels at a better rate than renewables and is just as low carbon impact as them. We could replace the entire fossil grid with nuclear in 10 years if there was public support and demand for it, but fossil giants have been parroting the same antinuclear myths and fears dor the last 70 years and its so widely spread even pro renewable people have been deluded into thinking nuclear is bad for the planet when it might very well be our last best hope of fixing greenhouse emissions without the entire world reverting to pre industrial lifestyles.

        • cooopsspace@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Nope, we will be burning the fossil fuels the whole time the nuclear plant is being built.

          That’s why fossil fuel giants and right wingers are banking on nuclear, because it’ll be a free pass to burn burn burn.

          • Rakonat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Nuclear plants wouldn’t take so long to build if people stopped trying to sue and protest their construction and sabotage it with all the red tape. If permits were approved and certified tomorrow a new plant could be operational in 10 years. 5 if it was actually funded and supported. Building the plant is easy, its cuttinf through the red tape encouraged by the oil lobby that is takes decades