this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2167 points (94.2% liked)

World News

39019 readers
2598 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 [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I swear to god all these "Omg nuclear will save us from climate change bro! Small modular reactors are right around the corner, trust me" tech bro types are fossil fuel industry plants to try and distract people from building renewables and instead build nuclear reactors that will ensure some construction company's CEO gets a multi-million bonus every year for the next 15 years and not much else.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah man all those fossil fuels burned in nuclear power plants... wtf?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

No, all those fossil fuels burned in fossil fuels plants that we will have to keep using for 20 years while we wait for these nuclear plants to maybe get built.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It does not necessarily take nuclear power plants that long to make. Japan built theirs in less than 5 years and France built the majority of their plants needing only 5-8 years per plant.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

That's only the construction time though, in addition comes design, planning and regulatory processes. And no one except a single plant in Finland have actually solved the issue of safely storing nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years, let alone just storing them safely against the natural disasters and wars that are likely to occur within decades or centuries.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

But even France is having trouble building new plants now, so it seems to build these power plants to the level of safety that people talk about when they say how safe nuclear is, requires a long time and a lot of money.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yea, so our focus should be both renewable and nuclear. Why does it have to be one or the other?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because any money spent on nuclear is money not spent on renewables. Most of these projects are government funded or at least subsidised. So a couple billion spent on a nuclear reactor is a couple billion tied up in something that wont make power for 10-20 years. Whereas if we spent that money on wind farms you could be generating power in less than a year.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, so cut government funding for fossil fuel sources.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

That is a given, regardless. Let's use our limited research and development and infrastructure funding to advance renewables. Not high-cost, centralized tech tied to the nuclear bomb industry for it's refined uranium sources.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So your issue is actually that there's a lack of a full commitment to public transmission infrastructure that would allow nuclear power to displace coal, gas, and oil? Sounds like we agree then

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

no? i really dont get where you pulled that from. My issue (among others) is that nuclear takes decades to build, so if we invest in nuclear we're looking at 10 years at least before we see any kind of return on that investment. and so in the meantime we have to continue using fossil fuels, which is what the fossil fuel companoes want.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The only reason it takes longer than a few years is because of arbitrary regulatory barriers we've placed - so when we say "we should build more nuclear" part of the manifestation of that will be streamlining regulation to make it faster and cheaper.

Alternatively, we make coal, oil, and natural gas subject to the same externality-internalizing regulations and taxes and see how things shake out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Weird that every country in the world others than China put up these same arbitrary regulatory barriers at around the same time. Can you describe what these barriers are and why they are unnecessary?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One is that nuclear power has to account for and financially compensate its passive radiation emissions. This is unique to nuclear power, even though passive emissions from nuclear plants are less than 10 times lower than radiation emissions from coal power plants. Clearly we don't care that much about the harmful effects of the radiation emissions, and if we do then coal should be charged for the current and past emissions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Can you send me a link? Because I'm looking for this regulation and can't find it? Or at least tell me which country?