With climate change looming, it seems so completely backwards to go back to using it again.

Is it coal miners pushing to keep their jobs? Fear of nuclear power? Is purely politically motivated, or are there genuinely people who believe coal is clean?


Edit, I will admit I was ignorant to the usage of coal nowadays.

Now I’m more depressed than when I posted this

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
6 points

As people pointed out in another thread, nuclear energy is NOT the future and also a really bad short term solution,so countries like Germany are going back to coal short term to make the transitions to renewables in the meantime.

It’s not a great solution, but without Nordstream, there’s really not much else more sensible to do right now, just to make the transition.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

what makes nuclear energy a bad option?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points
*

It’s just nuclear phobia.

It’s literally the second safest form of energy production we have only behind solar.

It’s literally safer than wind power.

Yeah there’s been a few disasters with older reactor designs or reactors that were put where they shouldn’t have been, but even with those it’s still incredibly safe.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

50+ years of fear from fossil fuel company propaganda.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

“BuT thE WaSTe diSPoSaL PrObLEm”

Meanwhile coal:

“Oh that thing that’s more radioactive than nuclear waste? Yeah, just toss it in the air. Who cares”

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
  • It takes 20 years to build
  • nobody knows how much nuclear fuel will cost in 20 years
  • you have to take out a big loan and make interest payments on it for maybe 30 years before you start making a profit
  • if you don’t have enough water for cooling because of climate change, the plant must shut down
  • if your neighbor decides to start a war against you, your nuclear plants become a liability, see Ukraine.

I think smaller, decentralized renewable energy is cheaper in the short and long run and has a much lower risk in case of accidents, natural Desasters or attacks.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

SMR (small modular reactors) are looking like they could become the next hip thing in nuclear power tech.

Basically a lot lower initial investment and offer a lot more flexibility.

Linky link

The link has a lot of info on them

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

A single new reactor takes decades to build and costs billions. Investing in solar, wind, the grid and storage instead will generate more energy, faster, and for less.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*

It’s not “instead of”.

You’re supposed to run nuclear along side renewables. Opposed to running fossile fuels alongside renewables. Either way, something has be running besides renewables.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I don’t necessarily agree, but the usual arguments against are cost, lead time, and waste.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Asklemmy

!asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Create post

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it’s welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de

Community stats

  • 10K

    Monthly active users

  • 5.9K

    Posts

  • 319K

    Comments