this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
246 points (89.7% liked)

World News

39165 readers
2167 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
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 57 points 1 week ago (4 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 1 week ago (7 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.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 48 points 1 week ago (5 children)

If America hadn't responded to Chernobyl with fear of atomic power and instead adopted a "this is why communism will fail, look how much better we can do it" attitude, the climate crisis would be a non-issue right now

[–] bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 6 days ago

Because we were determined to phase out fossil fuels at the time?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Orbituary@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago

About fucking time.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (33 children)

I used to be pro-nuclear and I am still not worried about the safety issue. However, fissile material is still a finite resource and mining for it is an ecological disaster, so I no longer am in favor of it.

[–] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Most human acticity requires some degree of mining. Lithium, copper, uranium etc. The impact of that however pales in comparison to the sheer volumes of land that are destroyed by climate change and fossil fuel extraction. Besides, when mines finally do shut down they often become havens for wildlife.

[–] Rossphorus@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago (6 children)

Breeder reactors produce more fissile material than they consume.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (31 replies)
[–] StraponStratos@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (13 children)

How disappointing.

Renewables and storage are far superior, in almost every conceivable metric it’s not funny.

Yet we let conservatives hype up nuclear garbage and carbon recapture as the solution to climate change.

[–] joyjoy@lemm.ee 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Still better than coal in every way.

[–] StraponStratos@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Right so if you’re moving off of coal, the cheaper and better option (renewables) is the right move.

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Not really, not right now it isn't. If you want to cover baseload with wind and solar you'll need energy storage. We haven't got a solution that scales well, yet.

[–] MoistCircuits0698@lemm.ee 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Base load isn't really a thing. This is the problem with pro nuclear. There isn't an understanding of the issue. Lets not talk about reaction time of fission plants.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›