158
Nuclear power output expected to break global records in 2025
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
158 points (95.4% liked)
News
23305 readers
3482 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yes, because that's what I said. I said we need to keep a minimum demand to keep the stations going...
You people are insufferable. When we have battery systems that are efficient enough to store enough power to keep things running when there's not enough window or solar generation for a period, then it'll be fine. You know that there are a lot of industries that run 24/7, for instance the infrastructure you're seeing this message on.. That has nothing to do with base load and everything to do with constant power draw..
Why don't you set yourself up with some solar and wind, but make sure not to use any batteries though, and get off the grid, then you can be a renewables puritan and lord over everyone else like you're better than them.
Did you even read the article I linked to? Or make any effort at all to get informed? And yes, we're going to have to build a whole lot of more storage. And grid capacity. And grid management. And load management. All of which are drastically easier, safer and cheaper than building a lot of nuclear plants. Even if it was feasible to do so which it very patently isn't. Nuclear power doesn't scale, as Hinkley Point, Olkiluotto etc. have proven beyond a shadow of doubt.
Nuclear is expensive because when particulate pollution kills millions of people every year, nobody cares at all. But when a nuclear accident kills exactly zero people, we get massive levels of hysteria and shut down a dozen nuclear power plants on the other side of the planet.
Imagine the reaction if there was a single nuclear disaster that killed 9 million people. According to greenpeace that'd be 9 chernobyls, but more likely it would be between 100 and 1000 chernobyls. Do you think people might be a bit upset about that? But with fossil fuels that is now happening every single year, and it's probably just going to get worse. (CO2 emissions are just getting higher every year despite all the growth in renewables) And you get a few news headlines about it and then everyone forgets. Weirdly enough climate change caused by the same fossil fuels gets far more attention, even though those effects are even harder for the average person to understand.
And even with this level of paranoia about nuclear, with the incredible level of security put in with gen 3 reactors that directly contribute to the massive cost and time overruns, we still have these "nuclear is not safe enough" claims flying around.
That's the dumbest take I've ever heard on this topic and that's saying a lot. And how do you know how many people were killed by the Fukushima triple meltdown that is in no way contained and has displaced tens of thousands of people permanently? The answer is we don't know because the Japanese government has systematically suppressed any reliable information from coḿing out. Which just goes to show that nuclear power is a danger to democracy on top of all its other drawbacks.
And who ever said the alternative to building nuclear plants is building more fossil fuel generation capacity? That's just delusional. Nobody is doing that, in fact fossil ist very quickly being replaced by renewable at a pace nuclear could in no realistic scenario get even remotely close to.
So which part is wrong? Does pollution not kill millions of people each year? Is shutting down reactors on the other side of the planet a smart move when the causes of one disaster are completely inapplicable to them? Are both of these responses reasonable and proportional?
you're sounding like a conspiracy theorist. I don't think japan has a police state that is in the habit of suppressing all information. I'll admit zero deaths is hyperbole for fukushima. There were probably a few deaths directly caused by, it, maybe a few dozen (at most, and totally unproven) from long-term health effects, and many deaths from the (unnecessary in hindsight) rapid evacuation. They still pale in comparison to the 19 thousand deaths from the tsunami that caused the disaster.
Certainly not an enormous leap in logic at all. No sir. It's just that the deadly nuclear radiation spontaneously causes the death of liberty. Russia only covers up their nuclear accidents (on those RBMK reactors they are still running) because of nuclear power, certainly not because of the way their society structured.
You just said that. Nobody else said that.
Like CBS?
or the New York Times?
or Mainichi?
I could go on. This is public knowledge. But there's no point trying to argue with the willfully ignorant. I'll leave it at that.
Did you even read your own articles?
CBS:
NYT:
Mainichi:
None of these support anything close to the kind of cover up needed to result in a "nobody can know how many people died" level of lack of information. They're mostly about failing to report the disaster fast enough and downplaying it by using certain wording and having a lax security culture. Not about the government preventing investigations or giving gag orders or something like that.