Renawbles are capable of generating a ton of energy manageable distances from where they are used in most cases, even for the cases which they are not it is orders of magnitudes cheaper and better for environment if you make green hydrogen, ship it to where its needed and convert it back into current where you need it considered the absurd amounts of time and cost it takes to manage nuclear waste. Not even considering the cost to mine and ship nuclear fuel, build the reactor and safely dispose of it at the end of its lifespan as its miniscule compared to maintain any sort of storage building for a time longer than the time between humanitys first building and now.
Mining is mostly done by people living under slave like conditions in poor countries.
Even thinking having a energy source which needs to CONTINUOUSLY BURN MINED RECOURCES to keep outputting any energy at all is superior to a energy source which NEEDS MINED RESOURCES ONCE TO CONTINUOUSLY output energy until broken by external forces shows the absurdity of your argument
Solar panels need silicium (literally sand) and bor, apart from some plastics and structural metal and glass. Those are way easier and cleaner to mine then radioactive materials, and bor is needed in really small amounts, AND IT DOESNT GET BURNED, YOU CAN REUSE IT.
3.Thinking that smashing a train against something tells you anything about the properties of a material when exposed to time spans of degradation many orders of magnitude bigger than the time humans even started researching material properties…I dont even know where to start with this “argument” its bs on so many levels
Im not a nuclear bro, but a vast majority of the planet’s Uranium is mined in Australia and Canada and both countries have pretty massive reserves. They have strict regulations and safety surrounding uranium operations. Naturally occurring uranium doesnt even pose much safety risk on its own, its the Radon that is generated by decay that causes problems for humans. Im not too familiar with how uranium mining is done but I imagine Radon risks can be mitigated pretty effectively with ventilation.
I live in a thinrd world country, and it angers me to no end when they try to take this moral stand when a lot of times they’re the ones who didn’t let us all develop in the first place lol.
My country depends on it’s mining industry, the biggest copper mining country in the world and i think the 2nd on lithium, they say it’s the wage of chile, most of the copper is extracted by the State owned CODELCO, wich money goes to schools and hospitals, and even the one who is mined privately is taxed and has to pay royalties that go to help the people.
Miners aren’t even poorly paid for Chilean standards, and they have benefits, they’re strongly unionized lol, and mines here have an extremely high tech level, making people don’t have to go to risky places, a lot of mines are totally automated, where robots extract the material and take it out, while their operators sit comfortably in a control room in the city.
So don’t come to lecture me on these “poor people in third world countries” because you know nothing, you are a firstworlder who had benefited from colonization and political meddling in our affairs, now that we’re finally advancing, and making a better country for ourselves, you come to say this thing? Bruh.
I fully agree with you that my ancestors have chosen the path of violence and colonization, which I absolutely condemn and try to make up for in my every day live.
And you are right, I dont know about uranian mines in Chile, nice that its state owned and actually beneficial for the area.
I understand if you argue for nuclear if the mines have developed your region and is actually beneficial to the people from an emotional point of view.
You hit me with an argumentum ad hominem, which is kind of deserved by what the society I live in did to a lot of the world (even if I myself try to fight that, lots of the privileges I have stem from exactly those past oppressions, can’t change that) but its still an argumentum ad hominem, and therefore not really contributing to the matter at hand
Nuclear is bad for humanity, even if I live in Europe.
my country extracts copper nor uranium, I just used it as an example.
but the story is the same, the thing people in third world country needs the least is for countries to stop buying their exports, and also that mining can be done way more modernly.
Well okay, i would not argue to stop buying Cooper.
I wouldn’t even argue against mining uranium in small doses for science, smoke detectors and whatnot.
My point is that extracting stuff from the ground is a big undertaking, especially when trying to do it in a way safe for workers.
It is not good for humanity to do that, just to burn it, when there are alternatives.
I doubt that most mines are actually owned by worker cooperatives and progressive states, but even if so, the USA has a history of making sure they get enough of their primary energy source for cheap, even if that means invading countries, murdering union people or straight up installing puppet governments.
Also here in the EU, conservatives have a history of blocking any legislation that would force company’s to respect human rights outside of the EU. So a lot of the materials used in Europe are not ethically sourced (clothes, caffe, cacoa, lithium, stone are the ones I know about having lots of child labour and wages far beyond the European minimum wage) I assume if uranium prices go up thanks to lots of demand, people here will buy the cheapest, which probably is not ethically from nations/corporations respecting human rights, as respecting human dignity adds cost.
Depending on a finite recource from other countries is hardly evaded in modern capitalism, but making your primary energy source one, when you have other options is just dumb.
I was pulling a analogy to oil, where the EU is buying from Saudi Arabia for example, a country not really famous for human rights, Russia (same) and america (facist).
Giving the powefull corporations and oil spring/fracking site owners there lots of money every year seldom changes the life of ordinary people there for the better.
Maybe it would all be different with uranium, but I doubt that.
Also I am pretty sure as soon as nuclear waste starts really piling up privileged countries would be pretty fast to get it out of there land and onto some less fortunate nation.
I just think if we want to stop using a finite fossil recource which pollutes our world for a few hundred years its not a good idea to substitute it with a finite fossil resource which pollutes our world for a few thousand years, if we have a cheap, renewables alternative available.
Mist sane persons would think that way
The only problem is, USA, France and China really really want to build nuclear bombs, but pushing so much money into it that they can pay it as military expanses is to much even for them. So we have lits of propaganda, that nuclear power is good, or even necessary, so most of the costs can be sold as infrastructure to the voters.
I never in my life have met a person who has a good plan on how to manage nuclear waste in timescales in which societys rise and fall, cultures get started and forgotten, etc. Pp. In a way which is even near practical not to speak of Economically feasable.
You think medical people could calculate the wage of someone guarding whatever today?
Mining is a tangebale aspect, bad to depend on, but graspable, controlling the waste isnt
That’s beside the point. Nuclear isn’t sustainable on the long run, period.And solar can potentially generate all the electricity needed and more by itself.
it isn’t, transmission is a complex thing to do lol, my country had a full blackout last year because a cascading failure caused by a transmission line.
Nuclear fuel will last long enough for us to both have nuclear fission and the capacity to space mine materials.
solar doesn’t work in places that don’t have land available to be turned into solar farms, here in chile they do a lot of solar, and cool melted salt solar too, but is far north in the Atacama and they have to bring it in, wich is a huge bottle neck, A nuclear power plant in Santiago would relieve a lot the strain in the grid.
Yes, transmission is a complex thing to do, and that’s why more funds should used to improve research in that direction, rather than wasting hundreds of billions on ticking time bombs, so that mining company owners can get richer while making us sicker.
1 hour of sunlight that hits the sunlit hemisphere, contains enough energy to satisfy the needs of the whole planet for 1 year. That’s how much solar is better than nuclear.
I really can’t believe that in 2026, the idea of generating energy by boiling water, is still considered “advanced tech” just because they wanna use a different fuel. Lol
Solar still uses boiling water, thermosolar at least, that has a lot of benefits over the photovoltaic cell, as it can generate energy steadily and even trough the night, here in chile they built cerro dominador, quite impressive thing.
it depends on the geography of the place, in my country it would be reasonably a huge challenge to build farms over the sea because of the geography of here (it’s like a underwater cliff)
and still, I’m heavily pro renewables, but that doesn’t I won’t be pro nuclear also, both are crucial tech to de-carbonize the world.
Photovoltaic is the future, it’sprettyy much unarguably the only technology that can create energy without moving parts or without any sort of burning.
You don’t get any more futuristic than this.
The only problem with photovoltaic and wind is that they’ve been actively boycotted.
Here in the UK energy providers habitually stop their own wind turbines just because otherwise the price of energy will get too low. That’s how fucked up the system is. And nuclear is nothing more than an astute way for these capitalist pigs in control of the energy sector to keep making money from something that should be free already.
I fully agree that solar will be the majority of electricity produced in the near future, but photovoltaic has the disadvantage of following the sun, and honestly, chermical batteries aren’t really the solution (and I’m saying this when my country is one of the biggest lithium producers in the world) Gravity batteries are, but surprise surprise, they are water turbines and water pumps lol, they will last way longer than a chermical battery anyways.
Thermosolar has the molten salt as a buffer between the sun and the electricity, you can use it to produce energy steadily, even in the night, wich solves the problem of having to build gravity damns and the associated risk of them.
I’m confident studying mech, because it isn’t going away anytime soon.
and yeah, I full agree that we need to reform the power grid and enact at least partial statization.
but still, nuclear is a good tech that can produce clean energy right where is needed, we shouldn’t discard it just because renewables are quite O.P.
I agree with most of the comment, but it really bothers me people still call nuclear “clean”, it isn’t, its the opposite.
Yes no co2, but the effects of burnt nuclear fuel are way worse. Yes the crisis comes slower than the current climate crisis but it last for way longer and is way harder to manage.
Co2 I. The atmosphere in large amounts is bad for humanity, no question, we should stop that, but with co2 we at least have an advanced ecosystem which will bring the co2 levels down relatively quickly on human time scales if we stop emitting before the ecosystem is irreparable damaged, with nuclear we dont. There us exactly one way to get rid of radioactive waste, and that is to wait till it stops radiating by itself, magnitudes longer than it takes for co2 to get absorbed by plants.
It’s a ploy to keep power in the hands of corporations and the bourgeois state. And in some cases the vision is to give the ultra rich nuclear (weapons) capabilities.
Bruh.
Nuclear is capable of generating a ton of energy right besides where is used, renewables have to be transmitted absurdly long distances in most cases.
And mining is every day more automated, sending robots to dig down the materials, and even then, is not like renewables don’t need mining also lol.
And yes, they test it, here they’re smashing a train full speed to one of the canisters to test it’s safety
Bruh
Renawbles are capable of generating a ton of energy manageable distances from where they are used in most cases, even for the cases which they are not it is orders of magnitudes cheaper and better for environment if you make green hydrogen, ship it to where its needed and convert it back into current where you need it considered the absurd amounts of time and cost it takes to manage nuclear waste. Not even considering the cost to mine and ship nuclear fuel, build the reactor and safely dispose of it at the end of its lifespan as its miniscule compared to maintain any sort of storage building for a time longer than the time between humanitys first building and now.
Mining is mostly done by people living under slave like conditions in poor countries. Even thinking having a energy source which needs to CONTINUOUSLY BURN MINED RECOURCES to keep outputting any energy at all is superior to a energy source which NEEDS MINED RESOURCES ONCE TO CONTINUOUSLY output energy until broken by external forces shows the absurdity of your argument
Solar panels need silicium (literally sand) and bor, apart from some plastics and structural metal and glass. Those are way easier and cleaner to mine then radioactive materials, and bor is needed in really small amounts, AND IT DOESNT GET BURNED, YOU CAN REUSE IT.
3.Thinking that smashing a train against something tells you anything about the properties of a material when exposed to time spans of degradation many orders of magnitude bigger than the time humans even started researching material properties…I dont even know where to start with this “argument” its bs on so many levels
Im not a nuclear bro, but a vast majority of the planet’s Uranium is mined in Australia and Canada and both countries have pretty massive reserves. They have strict regulations and safety surrounding uranium operations. Naturally occurring uranium doesnt even pose much safety risk on its own, its the Radon that is generated by decay that causes problems for humans. Im not too familiar with how uranium mining is done but I imagine Radon risks can be mitigated pretty effectively with ventilation.
About the point 2.
I live in a thinrd world country, and it angers me to no end when they try to take this moral stand when a lot of times they’re the ones who didn’t let us all develop in the first place lol.
My country depends on it’s mining industry, the biggest copper mining country in the world and i think the 2nd on lithium, they say it’s the wage of chile, most of the copper is extracted by the State owned CODELCO, wich money goes to schools and hospitals, and even the one who is mined privately is taxed and has to pay royalties that go to help the people.
Miners aren’t even poorly paid for Chilean standards, and they have benefits, they’re strongly unionized lol, and mines here have an extremely high tech level, making people don’t have to go to risky places, a lot of mines are totally automated, where robots extract the material and take it out, while their operators sit comfortably in a control room in the city.
So don’t come to lecture me on these “poor people in third world countries” because you know nothing, you are a firstworlder who had benefited from colonization and political meddling in our affairs, now that we’re finally advancing, and making a better country for ourselves, you come to say this thing? Bruh.
I fully agree with you that my ancestors have chosen the path of violence and colonization, which I absolutely condemn and try to make up for in my every day live.
And you are right, I dont know about uranian mines in Chile, nice that its state owned and actually beneficial for the area.
I understand if you argue for nuclear if the mines have developed your region and is actually beneficial to the people from an emotional point of view.
You hit me with an argumentum ad hominem, which is kind of deserved by what the society I live in did to a lot of the world (even if I myself try to fight that, lots of the privileges I have stem from exactly those past oppressions, can’t change that) but its still an argumentum ad hominem, and therefore not really contributing to the matter at hand
Nuclear is bad for humanity, even if I live in Europe.
my country extracts copper nor uranium, I just used it as an example.
but the story is the same, the thing people in third world country needs the least is for countries to stop buying their exports, and also that mining can be done way more modernly.
Well okay, i would not argue to stop buying Cooper. I wouldn’t even argue against mining uranium in small doses for science, smoke detectors and whatnot.
My point is that extracting stuff from the ground is a big undertaking, especially when trying to do it in a way safe for workers. It is not good for humanity to do that, just to burn it, when there are alternatives.
I doubt that most mines are actually owned by worker cooperatives and progressive states, but even if so, the USA has a history of making sure they get enough of their primary energy source for cheap, even if that means invading countries, murdering union people or straight up installing puppet governments. Also here in the EU, conservatives have a history of blocking any legislation that would force company’s to respect human rights outside of the EU. So a lot of the materials used in Europe are not ethically sourced (clothes, caffe, cacoa, lithium, stone are the ones I know about having lots of child labour and wages far beyond the European minimum wage) I assume if uranium prices go up thanks to lots of demand, people here will buy the cheapest, which probably is not ethically from nations/corporations respecting human rights, as respecting human dignity adds cost.
Depending on a finite recource from other countries is hardly evaded in modern capitalism, but making your primary energy source one, when you have other options is just dumb.
I was pulling a analogy to oil, where the EU is buying from Saudi Arabia for example, a country not really famous for human rights, Russia (same) and america (facist).
Giving the powefull corporations and oil spring/fracking site owners there lots of money every year seldom changes the life of ordinary people there for the better.
Maybe it would all be different with uranium, but I doubt that.
Also I am pretty sure as soon as nuclear waste starts really piling up privileged countries would be pretty fast to get it out of there land and onto some less fortunate nation.
I just think if we want to stop using a finite fossil recource which pollutes our world for a few hundred years its not a good idea to substitute it with a finite fossil resource which pollutes our world for a few thousand years, if we have a cheap, renewables alternative available. Mist sane persons would think that way
The only problem is, USA, France and China really really want to build nuclear bombs, but pushing so much money into it that they can pay it as military expanses is to much even for them. So we have lits of propaganda, that nuclear power is good, or even necessary, so most of the costs can be sold as infrastructure to the voters.
I never in my life have met a person who has a good plan on how to manage nuclear waste in timescales in which societys rise and fall, cultures get started and forgotten, etc. Pp. In a way which is even near practical not to speak of Economically feasable. You think medical people could calculate the wage of someone guarding whatever today? Mining is a tangebale aspect, bad to depend on, but graspable, controlling the waste isnt
That’s beside the point. Nuclear isn’t sustainable on the long run, period.And solar can potentially generate all the electricity needed and more by itself.
it isn’t, transmission is a complex thing to do lol, my country had a full blackout last year because a cascading failure caused by a transmission line.
Nuclear fuel will last long enough for us to both have nuclear fission and the capacity to space mine materials.
solar doesn’t work in places that don’t have land available to be turned into solar farms, here in chile they do a lot of solar, and cool melted salt solar too, but is far north in the Atacama and they have to bring it in, wich is a huge bottle neck, A nuclear power plant in Santiago would relieve a lot the strain in the grid.
Yes, transmission is a complex thing to do, and that’s why more funds should used to improve research in that direction, rather than wasting hundreds of billions on ticking time bombs, so that mining company owners can get richer while making us sicker.
1 hour of sunlight that hits the sunlit hemisphere, contains enough energy to satisfy the needs of the whole planet for 1 year. That’s how much solar is better than nuclear.
I really can’t believe that in 2026, the idea of generating energy by boiling water, is still considered “advanced tech” just because they wanna use a different fuel. Lol
And no, solar doesn’t need land.
Solar still uses boiling water, thermosolar at least, that has a lot of benefits over the photovoltaic cell, as it can generate energy steadily and even trough the night, here in chile they built cerro dominador, quite impressive thing.
it depends on the geography of the place, in my country it would be reasonably a huge challenge to build farms over the sea because of the geography of here (it’s like a underwater cliff)
and still, I’m heavily pro renewables, but that doesn’t I won’t be pro nuclear also, both are crucial tech to de-carbonize the world.
Photovoltaic is the future, it’sprettyy much unarguably the only technology that can create energy without moving parts or without any sort of burning.
You don’t get any more futuristic than this. The only problem with photovoltaic and wind is that they’ve been actively boycotted.
Here in the UK energy providers habitually stop their own wind turbines just because otherwise the price of energy will get too low. That’s how fucked up the system is. And nuclear is nothing more than an astute way for these capitalist pigs in control of the energy sector to keep making money from something that should be free already.
I fully agree that solar will be the majority of electricity produced in the near future, but photovoltaic has the disadvantage of following the sun, and honestly, chermical batteries aren’t really the solution (and I’m saying this when my country is one of the biggest lithium producers in the world) Gravity batteries are, but surprise surprise, they are water turbines and water pumps lol, they will last way longer than a chermical battery anyways.
Thermosolar has the molten salt as a buffer between the sun and the electricity, you can use it to produce energy steadily, even in the night, wich solves the problem of having to build gravity damns and the associated risk of them.
I’m confident studying mech, because it isn’t going away anytime soon.
and yeah, I full agree that we need to reform the power grid and enact at least partial statization.
but still, nuclear is a good tech that can produce clean energy right where is needed, we shouldn’t discard it just because renewables are quite O.P.
I agree with most of the comment, but it really bothers me people still call nuclear “clean”, it isn’t, its the opposite. Yes no co2, but the effects of burnt nuclear fuel are way worse. Yes the crisis comes slower than the current climate crisis but it last for way longer and is way harder to manage.
Co2 I. The atmosphere in large amounts is bad for humanity, no question, we should stop that, but with co2 we at least have an advanced ecosystem which will bring the co2 levels down relatively quickly on human time scales if we stop emitting before the ecosystem is irreparable damaged, with nuclear we dont. There us exactly one way to get rid of radioactive waste, and that is to wait till it stops radiating by itself, magnitudes longer than it takes for co2 to get absorbed by plants.
It’s a ploy to keep power in the hands of corporations and the bourgeois state. And in some cases the vision is to give the ultra rich nuclear (weapons) capabilities.