There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.

22 points

Hey, a climate activist with some common sense!

permalink
report
reply
7 points

Awesome! I always wondered when those voiced would get louder.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

Thanks god

permalink
report
reply
-7 points

Seem like this young activist still has a lot to learn such as ditch centralized social media like twitter and listen more to what activists with more experience who have been fighting for climate for decades have to say

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Yeah. Those idiots were not educated enough to support nuclear over coal so she’s definitely on the right path.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The ones supporting coal over anything are probably big ass energy companies your government and billionares have ties with. Climate activists do not advocate for coal

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

They do by opposing nuclear. Good examples in Germany and in my home country Finland. Solar/wind cant replace nuclear by themselves. The old gen activists didnt really have the capacity to think that far with scientific mind nut unfortunately with emotion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

If you really want to be heard a main stream platform is far better than the fediverse. And activism isn’t the kind of thing where years of experience means your position has more merit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

And activism isn’t the kind of thing where years of experience means your position has more merit.

You are probably too young to remember activists protesting against oil getting rammed by the government, the same government that is supposed to have a monopoly over nuclear energy

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

The way I see it, we either get cleaner energy with some safer nuclear energy, or it’s still catastrophic and we all just die faster anyway. I’m down for nuclear lol

permalink
report
reply
8 points

As it stands. Nuclear (fission) is the cleanest and safest form of energy available at the moment. When we get to fusion it’ll get even cheaper without even the miniscule amount of (stored)waste fission produces.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

It is not the “cleanest” it is the most “climate friendly”. Commitment to nuclear waste is a thousand year long process of monitoring and processing waste products and our record on a short term commitment of like 50 years to climate change is not a good record. Its not clean and in the long term not likely cheap.

However its certainly not as destructive to the world as gas is right now so relieving climate change before some other catastrophic milestone occurs is probably a good idea. Folks saying “its too late” misunderstand climate change; there’s always another level bad we can hit and nuclear provides stable, reliable power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

It really isn’t a thousand year long process though. The containers they have for them are very long lasting. Bury it in a large containment facility deep in the mountains (Norway is making a large underground system specifically for this iirc) and just seal it up. Maintenance will be minimal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Aren’t you able to recycle spent fuel for additional fuel and a lower amount of waste?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Hacker News

!hackernews@derp.foo

Create post

This community serves to share top posts on Hacker News with the wider fediverse.

Rules
  1. Keep it legal
  2. Keep it civil and SFW
  3. Keep it safe for members of marginalised groups

Community stats

  • 1

    Monthly active users

  • 21K

    Posts

  • 11K

    Comments

Community moderators