this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
229 points (92.9% liked)

World News

38978 readers
2867 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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


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
[–] ghostblackout@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago (4 children)

God dam people are fucking stupid nuclear is safer then coal wind and solar and better for the planet https://youtu.be/lhHHbgIy9jU here is my source and if you want his ask him

[–] Turun@feddit.de 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, it's safer than coal, on the same level as solar and wind. But it's fucking expensive to achieve that equality! You can build 5 times the solar or wind capacity for the same price!

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Wind and solar need to be paired with batteries, so it's not as cheap as everyone wants to think.

[–] DdCno1@kbin.social 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Seriously? Jeez pedanticness, if you really me to change it: you need energy storage.

[–] DdCno1@kbin.social 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The point is that this type of energy storage is very cheap relative to the amount of power it can store.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I've heard some problems with it (pumped hydro) that I don't recall all the specifics that's why we see other things like batteries (or all the others jeez).

[–] DdCno1@kbin.social 0 points 6 months ago

You need suitable locations. That's the main limitation.

[–] suzune@ani.social 10 points 6 months ago (4 children)

The problem is the waste. Germany has radioactive waste and it couldn't find a suitable place to deposit it for over 30 years. I think it's still somewhere on rails or in temporary storages. It's horrible and they don't want to collect more of it.

Here is more about the problem that no one talks about: https://youtu.be/uU3kLBo_ruo

[–] Pietson@kbin.social 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Nuclear waste is a potential issue. Fossil fuel waste is a major issue right now.

The fact that the waste for nuclear is entirely contained is very good. It allows us to place it in permanent storage location like the one in Finland from your video, and perhaps even launch it off the planet in one or two centuries. There is no containing co2, only reducing.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Putting highly radioactive waste on a rocket is a bad, bad idea.

And guess what: solar and wind have neither CO2 nor nuclear waste as a product, and are cheaper to build and operate as well. Nuclear is comically expensive, and only gets by with massive state subsidies

[–] TheOtherThyme@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

And guess what: solar and wind canot take care of base load. Only oil, gas, coal, or nuclear can be run 24-7 with varying output in response to demand. Choose one.

[–] tmjaea@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Ever heard of electrical energy storage?

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 months ago

All of that is a solvable problem. We need to modernize the energy grid, because over large distances surplus and demand more easily equalize. Domestic energy consumption is fairly easy to cover with renewables and small to intermediate scale energy storage. The big consumers are heavy industry, and most of that can easily adapt by only running when there's a surplus. With how cheap renewables are, they'd likely even save money in such a scenario

[–] Forester@yiffit.net 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Sir, this is an emotional argument. Begone with your facts and logic.

[–] DdCno1@kbin.social 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Two people who have never heard of things like these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

This is a solved issue. Absolutely nobody who knows what they are talking about would claim that you can't run a country on renewables alone.

[–] Forester@yiffit.net 4 points 6 months ago

Pumped hydro storage requires massive dams to be constructed and massive amounts of habitat to be turned into artificial lakes. Also, we literally don't have enough water for that to be viable anywhere but the coasts

[–] ghostblackout@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] Forester@yiffit.net 3 points 6 months ago

You can't just drop a link and expect them to watch it. Although I will say it is a informative video on this entire subject matter.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 0 points 6 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/4aUODXeAM-k

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 0 points 6 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/uU3kLBo_ruo

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] TwoCubed@feddit.de 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This safety comes at a cost, literally. It's fucking insanely expensive to keep it safe. Yet it can and has failed. Also, fissile material needs to come from somewhere. Guess where that is? Also, how much of it is still available? Nah, fuck nuclear power.

[–] DdCno1@kbin.social 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yup. A significant amount of the fissile material in Europe used to come out of Russia. France, who is commonly held up as the arch-defender of nuclear power, is now fighting basically colonial wars in Africa for this stuff. There's a finite amount of it, it's costly to extract, costly to refine, costly to transport. Even before you've generated a single kilowatt of power, you've already done a lot of damage to the environment just for the fuel.

[–] Forester@yiffit.net 5 points 6 months ago

Gee whiz, I wonder what's worse for the environment open pit strip mining entire mountains for coal or a few smaller mines targeting uranium deposits. As for thorium, we don't even need to mine it. It's fucking everywhere.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/lhHHbgIy9jU

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] ghostblackout@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I don't really like new YouTube front ends I just use youtube revanced but I don't care if people use other stuff I'm just like a arch user telling you I use arch but I tell it to you nicely and dont force it on you Before people say hey this is a bot I know

[–] Omniraptor@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Just block the bot if you don't like it

[–] ghostblackout@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

I have nothing wrong with it