Green - An environmentalist community

5310 readers

2 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!

RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith

Related communities:

Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

theloneforager@lemmy.ml

Chloe@lemmy.ml

UK to build 8 nuclear reactors amid new energy strategy (abcnews.go.com)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml to c/green@lemmy.ml

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I hate humans, hybris, stupid, selfish.... the waste will blow up like popcorn one day...

The stupidity is grotesque and reminds me on the dontlookup movie...

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] toneverends@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Scenario: Pick exactly 1 or 2 of the following options:

A devastatingly cancerous world polluted by nuclear waste.
+6°C global warming scenario.

Honestly, if forced, I'd pick cancer world. If the options were toned down a bit, I'd still pick "slight nuclear cancer world" over "+3°C warming".

Ideally, I'd still like to figure out how to pick neither; but as keeps being reiterated, it's difficult to pry people away from air travel, automobiles, and overconsumption. Capitalism probably won't be adequately regulated or dismantled to enact sufficiently radical systemic-efficiency change.

Sure, I hope we find that narrow path to success that is gently massaging capitalism and consumption to facilitate a sustainable future, but that hasn't worked adequately in the past 50 years so I'm pessimistic.

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I choose none of it because diasters will happen with nuclear energy or not, what you change is once the next tsunami hit the next nuclear power plant that you deliberately risk peoples live on a gamble so that you can continue to do whatever you do best, exploiting the earth and their resources and think you can win a prize with this strategy. You can and will always lose with this kind of thinking.

History showed that Nuclear Power plants do not reduce or keep the climate how it is, we got overall +2C since we use nuclear, within 60-100 years climate changed that much, with and without nuclear. Nuclear power plants will not stop the growth and the demand and you numbers are in general too high. 6C in net 100 years is unrealistic.

You can use the nuclear material from atomic bombs, use this as a middle ground to get rid of it, of course the waste issue will continue to exist when the music stops playing but it would be more efficient than using it as threat.

Once green systems are in place, it is overall cheaper for the consumer. I could post what I would pay for nuclear ... numbers are rising each year not sinking btw .. and then what I pay for green energy ... numbers are falling each year.

[–] toneverends@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I am trying to draw out a bit of honesty from the pro-fission crowd: yes, fission reactors could supply all our energy needs for hundreds of years (if thorium is included), and if the standards are relaxed a bit it could even happen quickly enough. But at the cost of dealing with waste, accidents, nuclear weapons proliferation. (Thorium breeds U233).

If the nuclear weapons proliferation can be held back from initiating nuclear winter (big iff..), we still get a bit of cancer and sickness and war, but maybe that's better than +3..6°C.

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Thorium as well as molten salt still need to be feed with fresh material, you gain max 1000 years, this is already calculated you still run out and the more reactors you create the faster those 1000 years will shrink. Compensating is not possible.
You still produce waste.
You still have downsides, lots of them, linked them multiple times already.
Nuclear war is already at risk with Ukraine, the risk is not theoretically, it is actually real threat and even if there is no Ukraine, the next political conflict will come so or so.
If nuclear fallout happen then you have other problems to worry about than climate. This is then only the cherry on top.
I do not argue human life here, with no one. Better .. when is it better .. when 1 dies ... 10, 100.. when is enough enough. Nuclear killed thousands of people, there is not even a statistic on how many people die alone of mining the uranium that causes cancer. Maybe 5000k+- and how many will die in next years when next reactors blow up and how will climate respond when you pump in waste water back into ocean and claim is all clean, secure ... unpredictable...

Nuclear is mass suicide supported by Trump voter, same misguided people.

[–] knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is the best energy news to come out of the west for at least a generation.

[–] CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Will monitor the news when the next disaster occurs if you volunteer going into the death trap to help when the next reactor got hit my the next tsunami.

No supporter will then open his mouth... or volunteer... you can count on it...

[–] ziproot@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Renewable energy is better: https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1038/s41560-020-00696-3

However, this is still progress.