• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    515 months ago

    ITT oil and coal propaganda proving propaganda and fear mongering work.

    Nuclear is safer in every single regard. Even including weapons nuclear energy has harmed fewer humans than coal or gas by far.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      225 months ago

      In Australia, nuclear is being used as a propaganda tool by the coal lobby to defend their interests against renewables because the build time is so long (and I suspect because the miners are more or less the same).

      Large scale solar with batteries is 1/6th the cost, 5x faster to build, better for the environment, better for energy independence, and doesn’t carry the risk of an event that’ll render an entire country uninhabitable. I’m yet to hear a decent argument for nuclear.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        35 months ago

        the build time is so long (and I suspect because the miners are more or less the same).

        Correct. It takes a long time to build a miner. Regressive politicians are hard at work to rectify that though, by once again allowing minor miners to mind the mines.

      • Marxism-Fennekinism
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        IMO, it is if you factor in the fact that it’s currently the fastest way of actually replacing the energy generated by fossil fuels before the earth becomes totally incompatible with human life. Nope, I’m wrong, see replies.

      • Clarke
        link
        fedilink
        -3
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Technically yes, people keep dieing on the windmills.

        This is not me saying we need to build less solar or wind. We still need to build more and we also need small modular reactors to provide base load. If we had the battery capacity to store renewables at scale I would be for it however we do not.

        • Blake [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          145 months ago

          Do you have a source for the claim that wind and solar are more dangerous than nuclear?

          I looked myself and from what I saw Solar and wind were safer than nuclear, not to mention cheaper and cleaner.

            • Blake [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              135 months ago

              Even according to your source (which is really biased, by the way), renewables are just as safe as nuclear.

              Why should be waste money on expensive, dirty nuclear power when we can get double the return on investment with much cleaner renewables?

              There is no sensible reason to mine limited uranium unless you want us to continue to be dependent on exploitative, extractive industries?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              15 months ago

              it’s all fun and games if you just compare the deaths and ignore the fact that there is still a 2600km² area in Ukraine that is so toxic that no one can live in it, and that almost 40 years later.

              and that will be that way for thousands of years to come.

              • Clarke
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Imagine taking the time to have a nuanced opinion and actually read what I wrote. Small modular reactors are not RBMK unhoused unshielded reactors…

                Furthermore that power plant is still operational. The major issue with that area is long-term exposure but only if you disturb the ground you should ask the Russians that invaded Ukraine about that.

                  • Clarke
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -15 months ago

                    Just so we are on the same page the original starting point of this entire conversation was somebody asking if nuclear is safer than solar and wind.

                    I responded that yes technically there are more deaths per capita with solar and wind because the installation procedures are hazardous people keep falling to death and getting crushed. My entire point by bringing up those deaths. It that they are edge case worst case scenarios. However I am still an advocate for renewables such as solar and wind power and offshore sea power. I just realized the reality of the situation that is grid scale storage and how it is currently not feasible to maintain a grid scale storage with out base load power stations such as coal natural gas and nuclear. I would like to remove the coal and natural gas power plants and upgrade them to nuclear plants. Just like a meltdown would be a worst case scenario.

                    The facts are that meltdowns are exceedingly rare, and we have learned from and improved upon the design of the reactors in use over the last century. Yes nuclear power is 90 years old at this point.

                    People get crushed and fall to death all the time. Furthermore if it’s a modern containment style reactor design then there is basically no risk of long-term contamination.

                    Tell me more about my opinions and what they are. I don’t think you understand what the word nuanced means. Especially if you are proponent of a nuclear scary and scary is bad mindset. Are there potential risks Yes are there potential rewards also yes weighing the pros and the cons. I am pro nuclear.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      125 months ago

      Just saying anyone who disagrees with you is a shill is the absolute most pathetic argument, it’s what conspiracy loons do.

      No one is saying use coal or gas that’s a red herring all the nuclear proponents love to try and throw in there, nuclear is hugely expensive and very slow to build with lots of complex supply chain, waste management issues, and security issues where as renewables are able to be installed far faster, cheaper and safer.

      It’s either waste huge sums on building nuclear reactors while we continue to burn gas and oil for the ten to twenty years it takes to get a reactor online OR invest in renewables and get off fossil fuels quicker, cheaper and safer.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        105 months ago

        I love how people will blindly support nuclear power plants so strongly that any argument made against them is automatically called propaganda.

        My power electronics professor told us the same thing you did, that nuclear power plants are dead because they’re too complex and expensive to maintain in the long run, and that renewables are the better choice at this point. Maybe this will change as fusion reactors improve, but we’re probably decades out before industrial fusion plants start showing up, if they ever do.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          35 months ago

          Two issues here. The fear of nuclear energy was astroturfed by Oil and Gas. This means any irrational arguments against nuclear are propaganda which 99% are.

          The second is there is no reason nuclear projects have to be big and complex. We could easily have small reactors to power towns and remote location. The reason we don’t has a lot to do with fear.

          Simply put we are foolish not to be utilizing more nuclear power.