• crispy_lol [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Nuclear is so popular right now I’m kinda a skeptic I just think we can do it so much better with wind and solar and they wouldn’t have the drawbacks nuclear does. It’s been super popular to minimize the deaths/accidents caused by nuclear, but it’s not just two accidents and they book isn’t closed on how many we will see. Big fan of the ashes ashes podcast on nuclear energy if anyone wants to learn more about the drawbacks of nuclear energy.

      • CommunistBear [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Also the sheer scale of solar panels and wind turbines needed would be enormous

      • crispy_lol [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        There are major drawbacks to fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables. As for producing energy on demand, ever heard of a battery?

        • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
          ·
          2 years ago

          battery technology struggles to scale that well.

          Also very few people have died from nuclear incidents relative to any other means of producing power

          • crispy_lol [he/him]
            ·
            2 years ago

            Weird blanket statement to make, batteries are used in all kinds of things currently. The scale of batteries is already massive. The power system as it is was designed with fossil fuel in mind, so we can't just replace fossil fuel with batteries and call it a day, but that's no reason to not use it where we can. If we only used fossil fuel for the things renewable can't do than we'd extend our time having a planet long enough to make better renewable tech.

            • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
              ·
              2 years ago

              there are size issues with batteries and amount of energy that can be stored. These things do not scale in a linear manner and there are hard physical limits on what is actually possible

              • crispy_lol [he/him]
                ·
                2 years ago

                so? read the last part of my previous comment. we may not be able to do with renewable exactly what we are currently doing with fossil fuels but that doesn't mean we can't convert our system to one that can.

                • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  hospitals for example require a constant stream of energy that cannot be interupted there are many such important systems that for reasons to do with human lives cannot be stopped and started depending on how sunny/windy it is. The requirements for these alone outstip battery technologies ability to handle

                  Also far more people die per watt for fossil fuels than nuclear energy. by a very significant factor

                  https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

                  • crispy_lol [he/him]
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    I'm willing to have FF / nuclear power for things like hospitals if it really is not possible to ever power them renewably. that doesn't make renewable sources invalid.

                    • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
                      ·
                      2 years ago

                      I was never saying we shouldn't do everything we can on renewables I was just saying that as they alone aren't enough of the options available nuclear is the clear frontrunner by a wide margin.

                      renewable energy is important but it's not enough on it's own

    • americandeathdrive [none/use name]
      ·
      2 years ago

      All of this stuff is really a stepping stone right now to the holy grail that is fusion, even if that doesn't work near term we can always do solar reflector to microwave Satalites. Creating ev panels and wind turbine blades are not environmentally friendly by any means, I don't think nuclear is super safe for the record, but we are in a rock and a hard place.

      • crispy_lol [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I’m not convinced that panels or wind blades are environmentally unfriendly. Fossil fuels and nuclear have way more environmentally unfriendly infrastructures so that point kinda feels weird to single out.

        • Runcible [none/use name]
          ·
          2 years ago

          Aren't solar panels incredibly toxic to manufacture and made of heavy metals & I thought wind turbines killed tons of birds and raised local ground temps and increased soil erosion. Not saying green energy is bad, but it is most definitely not zero impact. People comment on the impact because it is so frequently ignored in larger discourse like the only reason switching to 100% solar & wind isn't done is cost.

          • riley
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            deleted by creator

          • crispy_lol [he/him]
            ·
            2 years ago

            Are solar panels toxic? I looked it up, and it seems most aren't, and some have a small amount of lead/cadmium but the most common type is non-toxic. And do wind blades kill birds? I looked it up and it seems like powerlines kill x60 more birds than wind blades (30 million to 500,000) from the numbers I found. I'm willing to listen if you got better info that I do.

      • crispy_lol [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        And what is capitalism and the american govt doing about FF and nuclear waste? Not the radioactive materials but all the equipment and facilities needed for those power sources? If you've got information on the waste byproducts are different energy sources I'd love to see it.

          • crispy_lol [he/him]
            ·
            2 years ago

            I don't have any power. I don't think the people in power are motivated by concern for the environmental impact of ALL energy sources.