• @pizzazz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    221 year ago

    Gotta love anti nuclear activists getting more and more desperate. You’re being decarbonised. Please do not resist.

      • prole
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 year ago

        nuclear energy is stagnant and decaying.

        Do you think you may be confusing the cause with the effect?

        • VeganPizza69 ⓋOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          Alright, tell me how many more nuclear reactors are needed globally. Let’s just start with decarbonizing electricity production.

          And, next, tell me how long do you think that will take, judging based on the average reactor construction time since, say, 1990.

          Or look it up, maybe someone wrote an article with such a response.

          • @assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            The best time to build them was decades ago, so clearly the second best time is to… Never? Your argument is taken straight from the oil and coal industries – it would take too long to build up renewables infrastructure, so let’s just not do it? We shouldn’t build windmills, because you can’t tell me how many we need globally?

            You’re grasping at straws. If you care about climate change, and you trust in science, there’s only one valid viewpoint on nuclear energy. I welcome dissenting opinions however and would be more than happy to hear why you disagree. Just know that I took courses in college on nuclear reactors and their design as part of my degree, as well as environment engineering, and I currently work in the green energy field – by no means am I automatically correct, but I want to see an argument that’s based in science and recent scientific studies and analysis, let’s say anything past 2015.

            • VeganPizza69 ⓋOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

              The best time to build them was decades ago, so clearly the second best time is to… Never? Your argument is taken straight from the oil and coal industries – it would take too long to build up renewables infrastructure, so let’s just not do it? We shouldn’t build windmills, because you can’t tell me how many we need globally?

              You seem to be unaware of the plans and needs to reduce GHGs. We do not have decades to waste.

              • @assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                You’re right, and that’s why it would be foolish to build exclusively nuclear. It’s also foolish however to not build any nuclear. The long lead time means we need to start ASAP so it’s ready ASAP. With proper government action targeting bottlenecks in the process (I believe there’s only one manufacturer in the world for a certain type of reactor shielding) we can speed that up.

                Diversification is the way to go. At the very least, we should build enough reactors and breeder reactors to consume existing nuclear waste and drive that to effectively 0.

                On top of all that, the bottleneck for deploying solar and wind en masse isn’t actually solar and wind facilities (although we certainly need those) but our electric grid. It needs an upgrade in order to integrate alternative energies, and I believe estimates on doing that are ~10 years. We might end up in a situation where a nuclear reactor is actually faster to build, depending on the type.

            • @rusticus@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              I could not disagree more. Renewables are cheaper safer easier to deploy and secure the grid. Nuclear is dead.

              • @assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                Nuclear is the safest energy. It has the fewest deaths per kWh produced. Some modern reactors are able to consume nuclear waste to generate fuel as well. If you want to minimize nuclear waste, we need to build at least some reactors to shove existing waste into.

                • @rusticus@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  Nuclear keeps our already unsafe grid more unsafe. It’s too expensive and accidents, while rare, are disastrous. Nuclear is dead.

                  • @SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    WTF are you talking about. You can’t just claim it’s unsafe and it makes the grid unsafe. Nuclear is INCREDIBLY SAFE. Other than a few disasters that happened decades ago it has the lowest deaths/kwh. And it won’t help contribute to the BILLIONS of deaths that are coming due to climate change. Your fear of some Chernobyl disaster is irrational.

    • @gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      I would love to be decarbonised, but unfortunately i dont have the patience to wait 2 decades for it to happen.

      • @escapesamsara@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        How long do you think it takes to build renewables? It’s been about 20 years since most countries have started implementation and no country is 100% reliant on renewable energy or could store even a night’s energy needs without generation.

        • @gmtom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          You can build a 50MW wind farm in 6 months

          https://www.edfenergy.com/energywise/all-you-need-to-know-about-wind-power#:~:text=Wind farms can be built,last between 20–25 years.

          It’s been about 20 years since most countries have started implementation and no country is 100% reliant on renewable energy or could store even a night’s energy needs without generation.

          Lot to unpack here.

          There are actually a few countries that have 100% renewable capacity such as Iceland or Scotland and a lot more that are very close.

          Yes we could be 100% renewable by now but the ff industry has done a lot of lobbying and conservative politicians have dragged their feet.

          It has been a lot longer than 20 years since countries started building nuclear, yet were not 100% nuclear, is that a fault of the technology? or the politicians and NIMBYs?

          Wind works at night, so you dont really need to store a nights worth of energy, especially as energy consumption is much lower at night.