• lemonhead2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    10 hours ago

    why is there such a negative sentiment towards nuclear power? was it all oil and gas propaganda? or is there some truth

    • fullsquare@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      73
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      9 hours ago

      the man who decided to end german nuclear power production getting a seat in gazprom doesn’t inspire confidence in reality-based discussion of this subject

    • CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island. Plus uranium is another non-renewable resource.

      I’m still pro nuke as getting off fossil fuels is of the utmost urgency, but we will have to learn to live off wind and solar.

      • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        So what has released more uncontrolled waste into the world, all the nukes including those, or the equivalent mega-wattage of all other human power generation? Our entire global community is FUCKED to the tune of hundreds of trillions of dollars from consequences of petro, while meanwhile very few of us are suffering from the effects of nuclear power generation. Nukes don’t replace solar and wind, they complement them.

        • kibiz0r@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 hours ago

          The question was “why is public sentiment so against nuclear?” and they answered, with a note that they personally support it over fossil fuels.

        • LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Ah yes, the Fusion Reactors that are coming soon ™ (promised decades ago).

          We need energy now, not at some unknown point in the future. Of course, resaeching this technology may make sense. But it does not help today and also not the next 20 years.

          • DahGangalang@infosec.pub
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Yeah, putting your hopes / goals on a fusion powered future is foolish at this point.

            But I def support (lots of) research into it.

              • hayvan@piefed.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                6 hours ago

                Deskto pLinux is here, and it’s fine. I wish it was more popular but that doesn’t stop me from doing all my development, video editing, music , gaming on Linux.

        • Gladaed@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Having become a carbon neutral economy a couple years ago since we obviously adhere to the Paris agreement this does not seem like a good solution as we already (would have to have) deployed solutions based on current technology.

          • DahGangalang@infosec.pub
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Agree that we can get to carbon neutral / carbon negative with current tech.

            I do think making plans based on having it are foolish at best.

            But I do think we need to keep working on research of it. If we ever hope to achieve a world with “electricity too cheap to meter”, nuclear fusion is the key to it. (That and dyson spheres, but that’s kinda not in scope of discussion).

            • Gladaed@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Electric power too cheap to meter exists and it’s called solar power.

              Renewables are dirt cheap. Hoping for even more abundance is forgetting that it’s already ridiculous.

      • Courtney (she/her/they) @lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I’d love to see a full production chain breakdown of disasters and their costs to clean up, for both fossil fuel and nuclear.

        Most people’s issue is “ooh scary radiation!” without realizing you get more exposure to ionizing radiation by living near a coal fired power plant than a nuclear one. Fuck, you can take a swim in the reactor pool and if you’re under the surface away from the nuclear material, the water above you blocks the background radiation you’d be exposed to walking around on the surface.

    • Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Honestly I think renewables are at a place where it doesnt really matter much anymore. My perception has been that its propaganda, but I’m not really knowledgeable on the subject

    • danielfm123@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      8 hours ago

      There are new kinds of nuclear power plants based on safe Torum instead of uranium, Torum is more abundant, easy to manipulate and “non explosive” china has many reactors with this technology, meanwhile people in the west world is still deciding their gender.

    • einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      35
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Because it only makes sense if you also need to run nuclear Submarines with ICBMs on them.

      Basically Nuclear power has always been a military project thats just “Dual use” to offset the cost by having tax payers foot the bill for civilians plants.

      Doing that makes the whole supply chain cheaper for the Military usage…cuz mining it only for military usage only would be hella expensive and harder to justify towards the population.

      • Bashnagdul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        This is only for uranium and plutonium based nuclear power. There are others that don’t produce weapons grade byproducts. Helium 3 for instance and other versions of uranium. Also cobalt is an option.

        As long as we want to pay for power, it can be profitable, in the sense that we pay what we need and people who work there are paid fairly as well.