this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43611 readers
1181 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

With climate change looming, it seems so completely backwards to go back to using it again.

Is it coal miners pushing to keep their jobs? Fear of nuclear power? Is purely politically motivated, or are there genuinely people who believe coal is clean?


Edit, I will admit I was ignorant to the usage of coal nowadays.

Now I'm more depressed than when I posted this

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And they’re going for coal in some places because the political situation has made other reliable energy sources unavailable:

  • the Russia-Ukraine war has destroyed natural gas supply lines to Europe
  • anti-nuclear activism has resulted in lack of nuclear investment

Outside of coal, nuclear, and natural gas, there aren’t many options for reliable sources of electricity.

[–] aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

the Russia-Ukraine war has destroyed natural gas supply lines to Europe.

Didn't the US bomb them, tried to blame Russia at first, and are now trying to blame Ukraine? With friends like that, who needs enemies?

The big problem with nuclear is scalability and infrastructure. The power plants take long to construct and require huge investment. Even if that's solved and the whole world goes nuclear tomorrow, there's huge doubts about there even being enough easily minable Uranium. Honestly solar and wind should be the way to go, but then there's the intermittency issue. Which is an issue fossil fuels don't have. At this point degrowth is desperately needed to avert the worst effects of global warming.

[–] riley0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

now trying to blame Ukraine

Blaming Russia was either stupid b/c putting the Nord Stream out of commission hurt Russia, or cynical b/c they thought we'd be stupid enough to buy that story. Blaming Ukraine has a basis in reality. https://www.reuters.com/world/us-had-intelligence-ukrainian-plan-attack-nord-stream-pipeline-washington-post-2023-06-06/ We may well have done it, as Biden promised, in concert with Ukraine or without them. https://www.wsj.com/video/video-biden-says-no-nord-stream-2-if-russia-invades-ukraine/B5942F2D-E4E5-4BD1-8CB3-8816A2ECAF19.html

[–] Thordros@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Look up the stuff Alex Hirsch has been putting out over the last decade.

It's Gravity Falls, and a background role producing The Owl House. Great shows! The LGBT representation in the latter goes hard, and I love everybody involved pushing back hard on Disney to make it happen.

Anyways, I actually meant Seymour Hersh. I just typed it wrong at first, but I felt compelled to gush about some incredible kids shows with great messages.

The US did it and Norway helped.

[–] room_raccoon@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why are people so against nuclear? It doesn't make any sense.

[–] Zangoose@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Nuclear is probably the safest form of power when proper protocols are put in place but it's hard to do that when the largest country in Europe (Russia, both by size and population) is currently in a war

[–] jakob@lemmy.schuerz.at 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What is safe on Nuckear Power Plants?

It's enough for hundredthousand of years, if only one time happens a SuperGAU. Only once is enough.

And the nuclear waste is dangerous as fuck for also hundredthousand of years.

And you can produce 30, 40 or maybe 50 years electric energy, and it needs the same time to decontaminate and dismantle a nuclear powerplant. And before it takes 20, 30 or mor years, to build such a plant... This is not cheap, not safe and not sustainable.

[–] updawg@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't trust the US Federal government to properly dispose of it. The waste from the Manhattan Project is buried in a landfill, a landfill that's on fire.

[–] BigNote@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem isn't fire, it's that the waste at Hanford has leached into the soil and a plume of it is headed towards the Hanford Reach on the Columbia River. There's a mitigation plan in place and it looks like it's ultimately going to work, but it's very expensive and not something that anyone wants to see happen again.

[–] updawg@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was referring to the Westlake Superfund site in St Louis right next to the Missouri river

[–] BigNote@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Fair play. That said, please do look up Hanford. It's way bigger than Westlake and is potentially a much bigger problem, though granted, Westlake is problematic as well.