this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
306 points (93.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43741 readers
1800 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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NormandyEssex@lemmy.world 135 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t think we ever stopped mining it

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Yes, the correct answer is that "net zero" Is a greenwashed lie to placate the masses into inaction while the oligarchy continues business as usual until collapse.

https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to-the-apocalypse-7790666afde7

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] DasRubberDuck@feddit.de 86 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Why "going back to it" have we ever stopped?

[–] 0110010001100010@kbin.social 26 points 1 year ago

I was going to say, coal remains around 1/3 of our electric generation worldwide (as of 2022): https://www.statista.com/statistics/269811/world-electricity-production-by-energy-source/

Coal can't be reused, created, or otherwise obtained outside of mining. Until we remove our dependency on coal, mining will continue.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 75 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

Oil propaganda convinced millions of people that renewable energy sources like nuclear power or wind turbine were dangerous/ineffective.

Basically humans are stupid and don't like change and rich people know and took advantage of it.

[–] Swiggles@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 55 points 1 year ago

It's renewable the same way as the sun is: Not, but it will last for a really, really long time.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago (17 children)

Because the amount of fuel used in a nuclear reactor is exponentially less than fossil fuels.

There's enough nuclear material on this planet to power nuclear reactors for tens of thousands of years.

Nuclear power is clean, efficient, and lasts for essentially ever

[–] Admetus@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 year ago (7 children)

It's close to 'renewable' but technically it should be called 'low carbon fuel'.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] tinkeringidiot@lemmy.world 56 points 1 year ago (26 children)

It never stopped. Hasn’t even really slowed down.

People need electricity. Renewables are great, but they don’t provide for the full generation need. Coal and natural gas power generation will continue unabated until a better (read: lower price for similar reliability) solution takes their place.

In my opinion, fossil fuel generation won’t take a real hit until the grid-scale energy storage problem is solved.

[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Hasn’t even really slowed down.

I think thats... not wrong per say, but somewhat misleading. Coal consumption has been steady worldwide for the last decade despite the population going up a whole billion, and as the average persons energy usage has gone up (largely as a result of growing quality of life in developing nations).

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are concerns outside of the list you wrote. For example:

  • people need energy and coal is a source of energy
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 44 points 1 year ago (1 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.

[–] room_raccoon@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago (24 children)

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

[–] Zangoose@lemmy.one 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 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

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 43 points 1 year ago

Because it got cheaper than natural gas.

Nobody thinks it's clean, they just don't care.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 36 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Climate change 'looming'? Dude, it's already here.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] bouh@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Because the ecofanatics focused on fighting nuclear power for 50 years instead of fighting fossile fuels.

Fast forward to now, renewable are not ready at all and they need fossile fuels anyway to provide steady energy. But geopolitics is making oil too expensive, so countries are mining coal again.

In brief, ecofanatics were stupid (and still are) and war in Ukraine.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 34 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Again? Did we stop?

It doesn't look like anyone has mentioned metallurgical coal yet. Even if you don't burn it for energy, the carbon in steel has to come from somewhere and that's usually coke, which is coal that has been further pyrolised into a fairly pure carbon producing a byproduct of coal tar.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Mrs_deWinter@feddit.de 32 points 1 year ago

It didn't, at least not in the way you think. The headlines of the past few days show the aftermath of the last decades: industry contracts that were made in the last century and the political heritage of a generation of politicians who are no longer in power.

Coal is being phased out and that's not changing. It cannot change substantially anyway; there is only so much coal in the gound. Recent political decisions moved to keep most of it there. For technological, political, economical and industry related reasons this won't be a fast process unfortunately.

One of the roadblocks of our transition to a sustainable energy supply is how much money (and in our capitalisic society, therefore, power) the industry itself holds. Coal lobbies will work hard for you not to think about them too much. Nuclear lobbies will work hard for you to blame those pesky environmentalists. A game of distraction and blame shifting. This thread is a good example of how well it's working.

Our resources are limited. This is true for good old planet earth as well as our societies. We only have so much money, time, and workforce to manage this transition. And as much as I'd love to wake up tomorrow to a world with PVC on every roof, a windmill on every field, and decentralised storage in every town center, this is just not realistic overnight. We'll have to live with the fact of our limited resources and divert as much as possible of them towards such a future. (And btw, putting billions of dollars in money, time, and workforce towards a reactor that will start working in 10-30 years is not the way to do this, as much as the nuclear lobby would like you to think that.)

[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 22 points 1 year ago (30 children)

In my country, because of a decades long fearmongering and disinfomation campaing that destoyed the nuclear energy industry. So now we're stucked with coal to keep the power running at night and during winter.

load more comments (29 replies)

Over here (Australia) we never stopped. Our coal lobby is simply too influential with our government.

[–] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (8 children)

As many people pointed out, we never stopped. Nor will be stop for decades to come. Unlike what people hear online, change takes time.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Asimo@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

It's never really stopped.

But from the actions of those in power it seems they're just plowing through climate change and making money whilst they can. Imagine the decision is we're fucked anyway so let's get mine whilst I can and see if it helps me survive.

[–] Fallenwout@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Because of the war against nuclear plants. Our green party shut down nuclear plants in favor for renewable energy. But as predicted, renewables don't meet our demands. So the green party started building gas plants to compensate instead of keeping nuclear running.

So why? Because of green idiocracry that demand the impossible of green energy (at this moment) and nuclear = evil

[–] Cynoid@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

I blame the release of both Factorio and Victoria 3.

[–] const_void@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago
[–] Beowulf@unilem.org 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It will slow when nuclear is the main energy source, especially in the United States (its currently ~47%)

Nuclear can also get recycled, and for the average American, the actual waste that can no longer be recycled is about a soda can (standard 12 ounce can)

Imo, the US needs to work toward nuclear usage being 90-95% instead of using coal. There's still a need for natural gas but it can be minimized

[–] bob_lemon@feddit.de 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Imo, the US needs to work toward nuclear usage being 90-95% instead of using coal. There's still a need for natural gas but it can be minimized

Why? Wind and solar are cheaper, faster to build and don't produce toxic waste. They can easily cover most of the energy needs. Or technically all of it, once you start using any overcapacity for hydrogen production (which is needed for carbon neutrality anyways).

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BustinJiber@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Actually I thought it's maybe because our crazy "friend", who recently decided to show how it never actually left from behind the red curtain, had no problem shelling multiple nuclear power plant sites. Just saying.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί