• Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Haha yeah, those who don’t agree with me must surely be stupid.
    That will show them.

    I know for some reason it is never popular to argue against the pro nuclear propaganda that keeps getting posted both here and on the old site, but I just hate how it tries to make anyone seem stupid that is afraid of the myriad of problems with this technology that are still unsolved to this day.

    Especially considering how nuclear energy gets dominated so hard by renewables.

    • Izzy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I might be misunderstanding this image, but it seems anti-nuclear by suggesting even modern designs are basically as dangerous as Chernobyl’s reactor. I know nothing about nuclear reactors so I have no opinion on the matter.

      • db2@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s saying people are too reactionary to know there’s a difference.

        • Izzy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh I see it now. Normally when this meme is used they have this character be correct, but this time she is being incorrect.

    • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I didn’t call you stupid I stated that anti-nuclear activists have a tendency to compare 80-year-old technology to modern technology and claim it’s the same thing. If you can recognize the difference in the pictures then you’re not stupid.

    • xam54321@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      the myriad of problems with this technology that are still unsolved to this day

      Like what?

      • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cost. Simple as that.

        Nuclear power is not economically viable, never has been, probably never will. The only reason it exists are massive subsidies.

        • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          You really really should look into how much subsidies get thrown at Coal oil and natural gas

          • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            As I said in my other comment: coal is not the alternative here. You’re not refuting any argument. Just look into the cost projections of your SMRs and then look at the current cost of solar and wind.

            • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              What you’re missing is solar and wind projections do not consider a grid scale storage solution… Factor into the grid scale storage solution with modern battery technology and suddenly the SMRs are a lot cheaper than battery super warehouses every few miles.

              Again I am not saying we should not be building more renewables I’m just stating that we should also be developing more reactors with the renewables.

      • nukeworker10@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Long term storage and/or reprocessing of fuel. On site storage is not a viable long term solution. We need some way to safely store expended fuel or change the rules to allow reprocessing. Commercially, we need to figure out an economical way to build power plants that doesn’t die under the weight of its own regulations. Vogtle 3 & 4 went waaayy over budget, and almost bankrupted the partners (Westinghouse I believe). Solar and wind are seeing reduction in cost due to expanding market and the economy of scale that goes with it, along with generous subsidies. For nuclear to get those benefits it would have to be constructed at a rate not seen since Three Mile Island. We lost all of those benefits accrued during the 60s 70s and 80s. We would be starting at least 10 years behind wind and solar.

      • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Shut up with your facts and logic this is clearly an emotional response only zone

        • reversebananimals@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your post is clearly based on emotion only, so I don’t think you’re doing yourself many favors trying to be sarcastic here.

          • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            This post was based on the fact y’all don’t have basic reading comprehension skills. I only have like 60 comments total maybe read through some of them.

    • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      We could shut down every coal fired plant and replace the coal fired apparatus with a modern reactor and keep the current steam turbine facility in place. But tell me more about how keeping Cole burning and spewing radioactive nuclei into the atmosphere as preferable than hypothetical meltdown situations.

      • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And that will take just, what, 200 years? Nuclear reactors aren’t diesel engines, they take a while to build.

        Also, assuming the only option besides nuclear is coal, is stupid at best, but I’d assume, you’re misleading on purpose here.

        • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If only we could use an assembly like process on a proven modular self contained reactor design to turn them out of a factory like clockwork. It’s almost like you don’t have to build an entire condensing tower if you already have one from a coal fired plant and it’s basically a direct engine swap. Does this gloss over a lot of complications Yes Yes it does is it a realistic solution Yes it is. You’re complaining that there isn’t an economy of scale will also stopping an economy of scale from existing…

          • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            And if my grandma had wheels, she would be a bike.

            You’re massively oversimplifying pretty much everything involved here. Nuclear reactors are not just pressure cookers with concrete shielding, they’re very complicated machines. Even countries with a, let’s say rather speedy certification and construction process like China need years, if not decades to build a reactor. From a design that already exists.

            You’re proposing an unproven reactor, with unproven economics, retrofitted in an unproven way into aging infrastructure, using factories that don’t exist yet. Why?

            Seriously, give me one viable reason, why any sane person would do that? I’m deliberately ignoring all safety concerns, this is just about economics. We have proven, existing, scalable and cheap technologies (wind, solar). Yes, they do have downsides, like any technology, but those are known, quantifiable and solvable. So why would an investor give money to a nuclear company? There are currently two reasons: expectations of subsidies and an almost insane desire for anything nuclear out of principle (this is you).

            I’m not against nuclear power per se, but currently, there’s simply no viable approach to that.