this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2174 points (94.3% liked)

World News

39110 readers
2424 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
[–] sockenklaus 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They're bike-shedding and blocking a major stepping stone to a coal, petrol and gas free future for the sake of idealism.

I really don't get this "nuclear as stepping stone" argument. Nuclear power plants take up to ten years to build. Also (at least here in Germany) nuclear power was expensive as hell and was heavily subsidized.

We have technology to replace coal and gas: Wind, solar, geothermal, etc. Why bother with nuclear and the waste we can't store properly...?

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

Because none of those (except hydro and geothermal, but those are both extremely location dependent) will deal with the baseload power generation we need. And don't just say we will make more batteries, lithium is already getting more expensive, and there may be global shortages in the next few years.

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

Because none of those (except hydro and geothermal, but those are both extremely location dependent) will deal with the baseload power generation we need.

Is this the problem though? I mean: The sun is shining somewhere at all times and the wind is blowing somewhere at all times. Energy is being produced. The problem is either storing it (okay, batteries are expensive, I get it) or better: distributing it.

In Germany we have the problem that we are producing a surplus of wind energy in the north but currently we are not able to distribute the energy into the south of Germany which results in needing gas power plants in the south while at the same time shutting down wind generators in the north. This is obviously bad.

Upgrading our grid would solve this problem and would vastly reduce our need for gas energy. This is costly but is far from impossible.

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

Until we got a worldwide grid and cheap superconductor distribution, there will be gaps in coverage if you rely on just solar and wind. Of course there are many times when we have too much supply, but it's not all the time.

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

I swear you lot saw one 15 minute video made by some 17 year old about how nuclear is safe and now you just spout the same 3 or points over and over again without any critical understanding.

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

I love how this person made a good argument about energy storage and you just responded with speculation and an insult, not actually addressing the point. If it's the same 3 points, you should be able to perfectly counter their argument without resorting to an ad hominem attack.

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

and ive made that response dozens of time before. Hence why im making that comment.

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

Or you don't actually have an argument and are posturing.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

Well for one he's implying chemical batteries are the only way to store energy, which is disingenuous and not a good argument, pumped storage is a proven, relatively cheap and widely known technology. and then the whole "BaSeLoAd" argument which is just literally just a bullshit buzzword the fossil fuel industry uses to try and make renewables seem less reliable.

So please wont you forgive me for not engaging the guy spewing bad faith arguments and ff propaganda.