this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2176 points (94.3% liked)

World News

39210 readers
2948 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 503 points 1 year ago (392 children)

Good!

Anti-nuclear is like anti-GMO and anti-vax: pure ignorance, and fear of that which they don't understand.

Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.

We've had the cure for climate change all along, but fear that we'd do another Chernobyl has scared us away from it.

[–] iterable 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't know natural disasters and war causing it to screw up also tends to worry people. Last time I checked wind and solar don't create massive damage to the environment when destroyed.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Except wind and solar don't have anywhere near the density we need. Nuclear plants are about 1kW/m^2. Wind is 2-3W/m^2, solar is 100W/m^2. Siting wind and solar projects can be just as damaging.

[–] iterable 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I didn't even mention tidal or geothermal. But how are any of those just as damaging? Nuclear waste is still a issue and again if it were attacked or destroyed would cause a massive ecological issue. Again last I checked destroying a wind, solar, tidal, or geothermal generator would not release radiation. Also the time to build one of those compared to a nuclear plant is a lot less last I checked.

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

Tidal is not a proven technology. The ocean environment is incredibly harsh on equipment. High-temp geothermal power generation is extremely site-specific, though ground-loop technology for heating and cooling is a proven technology that is woefully underutilized (though there are big challenges there as well, since ground loops take up space and done incorrectly overheat the ground temp/water table, etc.).

[–] iterable 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How would you define tidal as proven? Also correct there is no one solution for all areas. Unless you built a massive solar panel array around the planet I guess.

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

Which would solve global warming on its own

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Producing wafers for solar panels is indeed one of the most ecologically damaging activities we can engage in. Have you ever been to a semiconductor fab?

[–] iterable 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Solar does not mean just solar panels. There are methods of using solar without them. Also what about wind, geothermal, or tidal?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What else does it mean, CSP? I'd love to see more CSP projects, but it's not where most of the investment is. Wind, as I've pointed out, is even less space-efficient than solar. And geothermal also isn't seeing the same investment dollars. It should. Tidal power is interesting, but good luck with the fishing lobby. My state has the first commerical offshore wind farm in the US, and it continues to receive significant backlash from the fishing industry. This isn't nearly as invasive as tidal might be.

And this is to ignore the elephant in the room, that without nuclear, we will not get away from fossil fuels soon enough. We don't have the technology to solve the base load problem with renewables yet. Making plans based on some assumed cadence of progress is a recipe for disaster. Storage is a hard problem, and batteries are such a dirty, shitty technology.

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

It's a lot easier and cheaper to build a solar plant of ten times the seize compared to one nuclear plant though.

How did you get those numbers though? A standard on-shore wind turbine has a maximum power output of 2MW. Let's say on average, it's half, so 1 million Watt. You're counting 500k m² per turbine?

What kind of area did you use for the nuclear plant?

Also, solar has the added benefit that it can be installed on basically wasted space (e.g., people's roof) unlike the others.

load more comments (390 replies)