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
75 points
*

Oil propaganda convinced millions of people that renewable energy sources like nuclear power or wind turbine were dangerous/ineffective.

Basically humans are stupid and don’t like change and rich people know and took advantage of it.

permalink
report
reply
13 points

How is nuclear renewable?

permalink
report
parent
reply
55 points

It’s renewable the same way as the sun is: Not, but it will last for a really, really long time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

Because the amount of fuel used in a nuclear reactor is exponentially less than fossil fuels.

There’s enough nuclear material on this planet to power nuclear reactors for tens of thousands of years.

Nuclear power is clean, efficient, and lasts for essentially ever

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

It’s close to ‘renewable’ but technically it should be called ‘low carbon fuel’.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

It’s an interesting take. I guess the sun is not renewable either.

Is any practically infinite (in human scales) source of energy called renewable? I am hearing this for the first time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

We all drank the oil koolaid

permalink
report
parent
reply
-34 points

Nuclear just leads to more war and destruction.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

You…can’t be serious right now…can you? Or are you conflating nuclear power with nuclear bombs? Because the two are very different things.

As climate change leads to non-traditional weather, people won’t be able to farm in the same places. People will be displaced, famine will hit. Droughts will clear up water sources and fights over water rights will happen.

The only way to reduce the impact is big, non-emitting power that can run 24/7/365 and the only contender for that is hydro and nuclear. And we’ve already built hydro just about everywhere that’s feasible to do so. With a surplus of cheap energy, we can improve hydroponics/vertical farming, reduce transportation needs for food (by growing it closer to population centers), and develop a means of scalable desalination.

Nah. Nuclear will prevent far more war.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-24 points

nuclear power and nuclear bombs are the same.

As long as nuclear power exists, it will be used to pursue bombs.

Not to mention that nuclear power is incredibly unsafe and damaging

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Nuclear power plants used to be built from repurchased nuclear weapon factories so if anything it leads to less war and destruction

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