• qfe0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    For the love of everything, at least let’s stop decommissioning serviceable nuclear plants.

  • DumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    Normally I’m not a “lesser of two evils” type, but nuclear is such an immensely lesser evil compared to coal and oil that it’s insane people are still against it.

  • PhillyA92@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    That’s a big no from me dog. I barely trust the government as it is, no way I’ll trust them with nuclear power plants. And besides we have vastly better options such as solar.

  • Disaster@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nuclear energy is a terrible idea in both a physically (climate change) and socially destabilizing world.

    Even Gen4 proliferation-resistant reactors still represent a lethal threat in the event of a release of fissionable materials into the local environment. Building a nuclear reactor without a cast-iron guarantee that there will be a supply of engineering staff, components, materials and clear strong regulation to keep it running safely is a surefire path to disaster.

    Whilst the technology and physics behind it are well understood, we have shown time and again in a few short decades of utilizing this technology that we lack the responsibility in our administrative structures to properly manage the risks.

    It would take just one full-on reactor meltdown or disaster to poison an entire continent. We have consistently demonstrated that we cannot responsibly assume that risk, which is why there is opposition to nuclear power.

    If you want to avoid bad things from happening, do not deploy a dangerous technology and instead focus on what we can do. Renewables are more than capable of providing for our energy needs, and the big kicker here is that they can do so without putting the literal power “off” switch in the hands of the grid or plant operator.

  • flossdaily@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    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.

    • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 years ago

      imagine how much farther ahead we would be in safety and efficiency if it was made priority 50 years ago.

      we still have whole swathes of people who think that because its not perfect now, it cant be perfected ever.

      • danielbln@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 years ago

        So uh, turns out the energy companies are not exactly the most moral and rule abiding entities, and they love to pay off politicians and cut corners. How does one prevent that, as in the case of fission it has rather dire consequences?

        • Yaztromo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Easy. Have nuclear power plants operate as government run and backed corporations (what we’d call a “Crown Corporation” here in Canada).

          That way you can mandate safety and uptime as metrics over profit. It may be less efficient from an economic standpoint (overall cost might be higher), but you also don’t wind up with the nuclear version of Love Canal.

        • Dojan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 years ago

          I mean it’s not the companies operating the facilities we put our trust in, but the outside regulators whose job it is to ensure these facilities are safe and meet a certain standard. As well as the engineers and scientists that design these systems.

          Nuclear power isn’t 100% safe or risk-free, but it’s hella effective and leaps and bounds better than fossil fuels. We can embrace nuclear, renewables and fossil free methods, or just continue burning the world.

          • The_v@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 years ago

            The worst nuclear disaster has led to 1,000sq miles of land being unsafe for human inhabitants.

            Using fossil fuels for power is destroying of the entire planet.

            It’s really not that complicated.

            • abraxas@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 years ago

              Except that nuclear isn’t the only, or even the cheapest, alternative to fossil fuels.