• SchillMenaker [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Solar panels kill birds and windmills don’t work in the winter. If nuclear wasn’t the only truly green energy source, why does it glow that color.?

      I believe that’s what they call, in the business, a checkmate.

  • Des [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    heres my fake summary:

    instead let’s… i dunno, drill a hole to the earths core or mine asteroids for orbital solar panels or other easily attainable, practical solutions we can do in the next 5 years

    then we’ll just wait for a bunch of scam startups in the west to magically develop a commercial fusion reactor

  • Thordros [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Canadian Greens are the absolute most insufferable kind of libs. Their solutions for climate change are basically to replace fossil fuels with [Future Technology 18] like they’re playing Civilization 2 with cheats turned on.

  • peppersky [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    based and correct. if you still think there is any technology that is the answer to human civilizations unsustainable ways you are worse than useless.

        • memory_adept [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          if you think moderating individual consumption choices is going to solve this, you are worse than useless. only like 10% of the population in the imperial core has significant disposable income

          fuck your lazy degrowth idealism and eat shit, nuclearizing the first world and developing all kinds of power infrastructure, including with fossil fuels in the third world is critical to ending climate change

          for poor countries to stop being exploited in a climate-destructive way they paradoxically need power plants, senegal needs oil refineries for industry in order to undo the wasteful hierarchy of imperialism

  • Walk_On [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    THE CLIMATE CRISIS has propelled nuclear energy back into fashion. Its proponents argue we already have the technology of the future and that it only needs perfection and deployment. Nuclear Is Not the Solution demonstrates why this sort of thinking is not only naïve but dangerous.

    Even beyond the horrific implications of meltdown and the intractable problem of waste disposal, nuclear is not practicable on such a large scale. Any appraisal of future energy technology depends on two important parameters: cost and time. Nuclear fails on both counts. It is more costly than its renewable competitors wind and solar. And, importantly given the need for rapid transformation, it is slow. A plant takes a decade to come online. If you include permits and fundraising, this adds another decade. And we should not forget the deep roots it has in the defense industry.

    M. V. Ramana’s powerful book destroys any illusion that nuclear is our answer to climage change, untangling technical arguments into simple and sensible language. Importantly, Nuclear Is Not the Solution also unmasks the powerful groups with vested interests in the maintenance of the status quo, currently working hard to greenwash a spectacularly dirty industry.

    • Parsani [love/loves, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      At least this doesn’t seem as stupid as the German green plan of just shutting down nuclear plants before there is a renewable source to replace it. I would rather wind and solar are the focus of a transition. (plus a healthy reduction of energy consumption)

  • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    The recent war in Ukraine made me a lot more cautious of nuclear because if there’s a belligerent who’s willing to cross the Rubicon by bombing nuclear plants (ie the US), then all the statistics about nuclear plants being safe goes out the window. There’s also speculation that if Israel nukes Tehran, Iran will launch hypersonic cruise missiles targeting Israeli nuclear plants and Chernobyl Israel since their main nuclear plant is located at the very center of Israel on top of other nuclear plants that are located close to urban centers.

    Of course, it’s not like bombing coal plants will have zero environmental impact and I would imagine blowing up dams will overall do far more environmental damage and kill far more people.

    The relevant questions are:

    1. What are the environmental impacts and human costs of a nuclear plant being bombed and destroyed by a belligerent military?

    2. What safeguards can be placed to thwart or mitigate military attacks targeting nuclear plants?

    • TheBroodian [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Taking a look at Chernobyl today, the environmental impacts of a melted down or destroyed nuclear reactor are way less destructive (maybe not destructive at all, except to human life within close proximity of the reactor) than the costs of avoiding nuclear in fear of these hypothetical possibilities

  • lemmyseizethemeans@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Most people support nuclear but I’m 100% behind this book and it’s thesis. Done a lot of research, and I wish information about this topic was more widespread.

    • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I assume we all agree that they should be state-run, and that PG&E will continue to kill people regardless of the types of power generation they use.