this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
244 points (89.6% liked)

World News

39142 readers
2943 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 57 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Yeah, because it'll tie budgets up for ten years building it, and in the meantime all the fossil fuel people can tap those final nails into our coffin while they line their pockets.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 35 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ten years? More like twenty. Hinkley point C was started in 2013, supposed to be finished 2023. This year the estimation was corrected to 2029-2031.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Counterpoint: UAE went from zero nuclear energy to producing as much as Denmark or Portugal produce renewables in ten years. From a base of zero nuclear expertise in the country.

[–] FedditNutzer@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago

It was 13 years and not 10. From your source the bid was won in 2009 and the third reactor started in 2022, with the fourth not ready for that article (middle 2023). Still not 20 years, but 30% above the claimed decade.

The graphic and comparison however are just clickbait. For one it compares a filthy rich oil-state without democracy and Denmark/Portugal where the government can't just push something like that through. Apart from that it's made to look like a sudden extreme increase from UAE that might continue that strongly, which it won't. Starting an NPP of course makes a sudden huge spike, while renewables are more incremental.

This comes as no surprise to me when the source seems to be highly subjective with a huge bias towards UAE:

Those who are critical of these high-energy nations ought to consider that they are not the countries to blame for climate change. Indeed, these countries ought to be applauded for taking measures to wean themselves off of fossil fuels

Of course one of the major oil-states that pushes against measures to slow down the climate change at every chance it gets is not to blame for anything... Sure...

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And we all know that the UAE are the international beacon of safety, worker's rights, rule of law and cost effectiveness.

That's a really bad argument. That's like saying the Soviet Union was really good at digging canals.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So existing examples that go against your argument dont count because you dont like the country. OK.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

So countering your argument with counterarguments why your example is flawed isn't allowed, because you'd need to reconsider?

Tell me, do you really think the UAE are willing, not capable, willing to invest in safety and lawfulness as much as any even halfway free country?

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Its possible that it was built to a lower standard than would be expected in the west, both in terms of quality and worker safety. Though unless you have specific reports of that I dont see any reason just to assume it because Arabs bad.

In addition this was largely built by Korean companies who have a successful record of building NPPs at home without incident, I imagine Korea wouldnt be particularly happy if their citizens (especially highly trained and economically productive ones) were being abused to build foreign infrastructure.

The main point is that NPPs dont have to be stuck in a quagmire, and using Hinkley Point as a stand in for all NPP construction is disingenuous, just as using the UAE as a sole example would be.

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Ok so counter-argument, the UK is also a terrible example when it comes to getting things done (safely or not), our government is even worse than the United States when it comes to intentionally fucking up and delaying things in order to funnel public funds into the hands of donors/cronies. Hell we're already projected to spend more on a high speed rail project that isn't even high speed by the standards of anywhere else on earth than the EU is spending on their entire half a continent spanning rail network upgrades.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And even if they do finally build it, it's still a centralized system that regulatory-captured monopoly utilities can gouge the public on.

Solar and wind threaten them by being decentralized as well as by not relying on fossil fuels.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Centralized power is perfectly fine if your power is state run.

After all, natural monopolies should be socialized and run at cost.

And with the advent of small modular reactors, you can even decentralize your power.

A small reactor can have a building the size of gas station can power a small city, and the reactor will be small enough that it's literally impossible for it to melt down.

Sadly, regulations in the US (and many US allied nations) incentivise large and large plants that take forever to build and require custom parts which drive up the cost even more.

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world -3 points 3 days ago

Moving transport entirely over to the energy grid is going to take more energy than we currently generate - who'd of thought!