this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
1694 points (98.3% liked)

World News

38970 readers
2948 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
[–] mierdabird@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Chernobyl was a 50 year old design, and happened 40 years ago, involved multiple human errors ... nah can't consider things have changed since then.

Things have indeed changed, now construction regulations are far tighter. This is good because the risk of a Chernobyl event is far lower, but at the price of extreme cost overruns and project delays

Ignoring the fact that coal and natural gas still hurt and kill people daily

So is it better to start a nuclear project and hope it can start reducing coal & NG emissions 10 years from now? Or is it better to add solar and wind capacity constantly and at a fraction of the price per MWh?

There was a time when nuclear was the right choice, but now it is just not cost effective nor can it be brought online fast enough to make a dent in our problems

Somehow Dams that would be devistating to destroy are given a pass, but hey Nuclear power, so scary.

I think you're forgetting that once the waters from a dam break dry up you can rebuild....a nuclear accident has the potential to poison the land for generations

[–] Kinglink@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (8 children)

There was a time when nuclear was the right choice, but now it is just not cost effective nor can it be brought online fast enough to make a dent in our problems

And in ten years.. it'll be too long to add nuclear ... And in ten years it'll.

Solar and wind works in some places, it doesn't work in all places, and the goal is to start moving away from Coal and Natural gas, it's a long process no matter which way you go, but starting to add more nuclear capactiy so in 10 years we can use it, isn't a bad thing.

"It's too late" has also been a refrain about Nuclear, but hey, in 2010 if people started to go nuclear, we'd have that capacity today, instead it was too late then, and we can only go solar and Wind... and we're still lacking.

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The best time to ignore the nuclear industry scammers and spend the money on renewables instead for 10x the return in clean energy was 1942.

The second best time is now.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)