1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Ok, go build a nuclear power plant in 15-30 years for billions of dollars just to still be dependent on foreign uranium resources π€‘
Or build a decentralized, cheaper renewable energy + storage system NOW that also isnβt a single target for sabotage risk πΏ
We need both
I am planning the installation of 9KW of solar panels and batteries in my home (the limit in France), but that will not cover all my needs. My home is full electric apart from the wood stove, so I will still need to dip into the grid at times, especially in winter.
I am in an ideal situation too. I have a large flat roof and a garage to house the necessary equipment. The majority of people are not in that position.
Nuclear power the grid so it can be as effective as possible for those that are dependent on it. Give people like me the financial incentives to take some of the load, even if I cannot go completely off grid.
The fossil fuel industry wants this because they can still sell their crap for the next 30 years. Renewables are too fast and too cheap.
Solar power + battery? Or hydropower? That way there won't be, well, nuclear waste at the end? You know, the kind of waste that's highly radioactive? The waste that doesn't have a plan to be safely stored away for tens of thousands of years?
It's not even the waste, that we still need to learn how to recycle. Or the apparent incapacity of any operator to reliably follow the theoretical safety guidelines...
If we put all our effort into a nuclear boom today, the plants will only arrive a decade or two after the planet has been cooked, it won't be enough to replace anything, and we will have to learn entire new ways to mine the fuel in a few decades before the stuff we can get easily is gone.
Meanwhile we are about half-way done with renewables, and the nuclear fans keep denying that...
I can see why people have been scared by the waste, but it's really not a concern. There are long term storage solutions, but they just haven't been implemented in many places. Kyle Hill actually just did a video on one the other day.
The waste just isn't a big enough concern to have put the resources into long term storage yet. The radiation level around the casks is so low that you can be around them and hug them without concern. Flying in a plane is more concerning. This argument is mostly fear mongering so we don't phase out dirty energy. We could have thousands of reactors running, but they've made us scared of the solution so we don't replace them.
Forget it, i tried that argument a bunch of times. Also, you are depended on other countries, big plants are an easy target for a drone with some explosives, cost of nuclear is rising while all others are down, etc. People want to believe in a magic, water heating rock
Doesn't Sweden or someplace have a giant abandoned salt mine to store a thousand years of nuclear waste somewhere?
Not that I'm in favor of building nuclear anymore, we should've done that in the sixties.
Yeah but don't forget some accidents happened some times... And like some people died.
Oh, that? That's just the giant death pit of coal miners, oil riggers, refinery workers and the good old poisoned to death general public. Ignore that.
Nuclear is actually promoted by old guard mining and energy oligarchs because it provides a centralised means of control.
The peoples needs can be met with 100% renewables and battery storage. The oligarchies needs can never be met, because they are a malignant cancerous parasite.
Ask the French and Romanians how well Nuclear Fission Power Plants are going for them rn lol
For anyone who didn't see the reports, I believe this is what is being referenced.
Also French plants the last 2 years have had to shut down in summer, not due to low river levels, but too high water temperatures of the rivers
Nuclear energy is categorically uneconomical. Fossil fuel oligarchy and establishment support it because it is uneconomical and a complete non threat to energy oligarchy. It's military use justifies the fraud and bribery of pretending it is economical.
It's not economical, but profitable.
The revenue goes to the companies while the cost is paid for by the tax payers.
Do you have a moment to talk about our Lord and Savior, Wind and Solar Power?!?
oh boy, not that again
We should be pouring money into fusion instead of datacenters
If we had nuclear fusion, we could produce so much power with so little fuel that it would be economical to literally scrub the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and chemically refine it back into gasoline. You could keep your vroom vrooms and we wouldnβt be facing a dying planet.
But no, everyone thinks itβll be like The Jetsons when is going to be like every Black Mirror episode combined.
Thanks for the future, assholes
You know that nuclear fussion is not there yet and will probably not be there yet in about a century? In the 1980 they said we will be there in the 1990. In the 1990 they said it will in the 2000... and in 2026 they say it is possible but not with the materials we currently have so let's see in about 10 or 20 years again. And than they will need once again another 10-20 years and again and again... guess what even if by some sort of miracle they succeded tomorrow. It would be already to late to create the infrastructrure and keep the plants running to have an impact on climate change.