this post was submitted on 31 May 2026
237 points (98.8% liked)

pics

28670 readers
527 users here now

Rules:

1.. Please mark original photos with [OC] in the title if you're the photographer

2..Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.

3.. Image must be a photograph, no AI or digital art.

4.. No NSFW/Cosplay/Spam/Trolling images.

5.. Be civil. No racism or bigotry.

Photo of the Week Rule(s):

1.. On Fridays, the most upvoted original, marked [OC], photo posted between Friday and Thursday will be the next week's banner and featured photo.

2.. The weekly photos will be saved for an end of the year run off.

Weeks 2023

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://mastodon.world/about

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
237
Windmill (feddit.org)
submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by Novocirab@feddit.org to c/pics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] starlinguk@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Nuclear is expensive and produces a shit ton of waste. Green energy is cheap and produces way less waste.

And don't start on "but green energy can't produce enough energy" when people who have solar panels are being fucking punished for producing "too much" energy while the local fossil fuel run power station can produce however much it likes.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Nuclear doesn't produce all that much waste compared to how much energy you get out of it especially with modern reactors. Sure what you get out can be highly radioactive with a half life shorter than a Victorian child miners life expectancy, but we can contain that relatively easily or just drop it onto Utah nothing of worth outside of a couple parks going on there.

[–] realitista@lemmus.org 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Burning coal puts more nuclear waste into the atmosphere than nuclear does. Nuclear causes less deaths than pretty much all power sources, even some green ones.

Until coal and gas have been done away with completely, nuclear is a better option .

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Correct. I was just pointing out that a lot of the problems with nuclear are more or less solved. Before anyone brings up Fukashima I'm going to point out that was raw neglegence, the company running the reactor was told multiple times to move the backup generators up hill in case of tsunamis and guess what they didn't do.

Every last executive for that company needs to be tared, feathered, and ignited.

[–] realitista@lemmus.org 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Oh I was answering the wrong post ;-)

Honestly it read like it was a further elaboration on mine so that's just what I figured it was.

[–] richardwallass@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 days ago (2 children)

There are 74 sites across the USA for those long-term waste. Some are very sensible sites like dry storage sites.those sites are costing taxpayers billions.

[–] Soulg@ani.social 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Ok and if that's the cost of switching to nuclear over fucking coal and oil then it's a good thing

Renewables and storage can do that too

Given how ineffective the US economy is that may as well be a completely meaningless statement. I know damned well there are contracts out there that cost billions but the actual expense is only in the millions wages and whatnot included because the company is being bribed and bribing politicians in a corruption circle jerk.