this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
1183 points (93.4% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26948 readers
3217 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] avapa@lemmy.ml 32 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The nuclear ship had sailed long before the Green Party became part of the current government. While I also think that nuclear power is a much better alternative to coal power plants it’s simply not feasible to revert Germany’s decision when wind and solar is as cheap as it is now.

[–] Fjaeger@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not familiar with the German politics, but are you saying that Germany got rid of nuclear despite environmentalists?

[–] zielgruppe@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

These decisions are mainly rooted in the peace movement of the 80s (fueled by the nuclear missiles in Germany installed by the US) and the direct experience of Tschernobyl. Its supported by the majority in the public.

The current political decision was made by the more conversative government.

[–] Fjaeger@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the clarification!

[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

I think there is also an important cultural difference between Germany and France that led to different nuclear program.

In the German political system there is strong regional and local governments and a weaker federal government that holds all that together.

In the French political system there a very strong centralized government and regional or local government don't have much power.

Nuclear worked very well in France because of that. Nuclear energy need to be organized at a national level, German prefer energy that can be deployed locally or regionally.

[–] SMITHandWESSON@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem with solar is going to be scaling it to meet power demands. Never mind the fact that solar companies are cutting down trees to make way for solar fields.

Nuclear energy and hopefully nuclear fusion will be the future

[–] Yendor@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

It’s too late to start new nuclear projects. The quickest Gen 3 reactor build in the US was 14 years. So starting now, you’re looking to finish near 2040. And for those 14 years of construction, you’re pumping huge amounts of CO2. Over its lifetime it will emit less CO2 than many other forms of power, but that’s too slow. We need to be reducing emissions now, not reducing emissions in the 2050s and beyond.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's literally never too late to start them. It's too late for them, alone, to reverse the damage to the climate change but make no mistake that until we're dead and buried it's not too late to make more. The KW/h per measurement of CO2 that nuclear plants produce is incomprehensible. It surpasses even renewable energy, that causes pollution from the broken panels and other e-waste. Fission has always been the answer and it needs to be pushed through no matter how fucking late it is so they can then be repurposed into fusion based when we make that advancement.

[–] Yendor@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The life-cycle emissions from nuclear are better than PV, but it’s still not as good as wind or hydro. But the issue is that it’s massively front loaded - you have huge emissions during construction that are slowly undone over the decades of operation. But we can’t afford to ramp up emissions for the next 14+ years (both the emissions of building a nuclear plant, and the fact that the existing coal/gas plants will have to run for another 14 years). If you switch to renewables, you can reduce emissions this year, not in the 2050s.

And there is absolutely no way you’re going to repurpose a fission plant into a fusion plant. They have basically nothing in common apart from the name.

[–] IamtheMorgz@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

This might be true for large reactors but I don't think it will hold true with small modular reactors. We need the stability of nuclear too, as power demands overall rise.

Renewables should definitely be a priority still, but nuclear shouldn't be kicked out of the conversation.

[–] Kage520@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

What? Is there a good alternative? If we could magically make the world 100% renewable+nuclear in only 14 years that would be amazing I think. It would not solve everything, but sometimes it takes a bit to stop the bleeding before healing can start (carbon capture and planting trees during nuclear construction maybe?)

Is there a faster way?

[–] SMITHandWESSON@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

There was a successful nuclear fusion reaction experiment with a positive energy output just the other day...

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/scientists-repeat-major-nuclear-fusion-breakthrough/

So we're going to be using nuclear, just in exciting new ways.

[–] IamtheMorgz@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Not too late if we make small modular reactors a thing. Once you build one, every one after it will become cheaper and faster to build. Link 10-20 SMRs together and you could have a plant. Or just put 1 or 2 where they are most needed. SMRs are the future of nuclear, no doubt. But the current big reactors will mostly be around for a while, too.

[–] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago

Yes. Regulatory overreach has made it 14 years to build nuclear plants. Almost all of which is interminable red tape. We should fix that, not pretend it's a feature of the technology.

[–] basxto@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

I like the the Greens, but they actually initiated the phase out the last time they ruled 20 years ago. One of their core ideologies was the opposition of nuclear power.

But they were also for a coal phaseout. They aren’t responsible for how atomic plants got replaced and that the phaseout got changed into specific dates, they implemented a more flexible phaseout.

A later government decided to slowly replace coal plants with gas plants and keep those coal plants in standby for emergencies for some time. Which is what triggered last year, as those standby plants fired up again when gas plants became unreliable.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Why would you oppose nuclear and renewable? Except if your an ecology fanatic that is.