this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
31 points (91.9% liked)

World News

38578 readers
2168 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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 [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


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
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Why go nuclear when renewable is so much cheaper, safer, future proof and less centralised?

Don't get me wrong. Nuclear is better than coal and gas but it will not safe our way of life.

Just like the electric car is here to preserve the car industry not the planet, nuclear energy is still here to preserve the big energy players, not our environment.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

For what I’ve read, it’s beats nuclear tech exists and is ready to be built at scale now. Renewables are intermittent in nature and need energy storage to work at scale. We don’t have the tech for a grid wide energy storage.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I can't imagine a future without solar, wind, and nuclear power.

not unless we find out we are wrong about thermodynamics.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You don't need to imagine a future without nuclear in the mix - there are plenty of places doing fine with renewables and without coal or nuclear right now.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

For example South Australia - no coal since 2016, no nuclear ever, runs mostly on a mix of renewables - solar and wind with batteries and transient gas for in-fill.

Edit: thanks to whoever downvoted my verified statement of fact (see below)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Weird argument. "It's a place bigger than a bunch of EU countries put together but it's not a country so I'm going to use other places that aren't South Australia to counter your point which was about South Australia"

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

lol im not playing this shell game.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wind and Solar are "renewable" to a certain scale. If you dump gigantic wind farm in the middle of a jet stream, for example, you can impact downstream climate cycles.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

that's why we could be aware of all the externalities.

solar could be deployed on the ocean but that will certainly lower sea temperatures.

let's terraform intentionally rather than just accidentally.