Is this where we have another struggle session about nuclear energy?
Honestly I don't really disagree that the environmental activists and Greenpeace did really do a lot of damage in the 80s and 90s by fighting so hard against nuclear energy.
Maybe they did some harm, but fossil fuel lobbyists did far more.
Don't forget the Green Party in Germany getting the government to completely end nuclear power only for it to be replaced by... coal.
Are you suggesting there were pro- nuclear or even nuclear-neutral environmental activists in the 80s and 90s?
I assume he's saying that the anti-nuclear lobby was astro-turf funded by the fossil fuel industry.
weird, must've read OP wrong. thought you said they were very influential.
I did. Being astroturfed doesn't mean you're not influential
Edit: also do you have a source on oil funding Greenpeace?
Is this where we have another struggle session about nuclear energy?
rolls up sleeves
Yeah I'm gonna start it.
Anyone calling for nuclear energy at this point has worms for brains. Not just worms in their brains, but their brain is entirely composed of worms. Let's ignore the times we almost ended life on half a continent, the absolutely insane treatment of nuclear waste, and the fact that we still don't even have a permanent solution for nuclear waste anywhere on the planet (there's ONE in Finland that's almost up and ready. But it's been almost ready for 20 years)For now we'll focus solely on the fact that it's literally not necessary. There is no reason. Sorry, no REAL reason (I'm sure you're going to come at me with something wrong about base loads), that most of the world couldn't function on 100% renewable energy. But even if we couldn't do that, even if we had to use non renewable energy, nuclear is a fucking pointless exercise because we'd run out of fissible material in an astonishingly short time if we tried going all nuclear.
Ignoring all this (which is all ringing true) the entire thing about activists and greenpeace is just a scapegoat for the oil companies, do you think the USA gets off nuclear energy just because of hippies??? And Greenpeace??? I dont buy it for a second, theyre just a convenient enemy to point to. Its like saying "Oh man, its too bad people just didnt like the electric car. Couldnt do it, doesnt have anything to do with big oil, sorry".
Punch "generation 4 reactor" into a search engine and get back to me when you have anti-nuclear talking points relevant to this millennia.
Not a single thing I've said has been rendered irrelevant or will be rendered irrelevant in the foreseeable future
So how about this: How about you get a talking point based in real shit that exists
Let’s ignore the times we almost ended life on half a continent
Here's a single thing. Now go do your investigation.
I have actually looked into nuclear reactors enough to have an opinion on a shitposting website, whereas you haven't gotten an opinion based in real actually existing technology and facilities. In fact the fact that I have "investigated" this as you call it, is the reason why I am using that specific critique
This is because you are arguing from the point of a sci fi story.
And if you don't get yourself a real argument, all my responses will be "Cool story bro" from now onI'd love to see what you consider trite after each of these replies I've gotten
At least I have the honesty to not write paragraphs when all I have to say is "I'm right for no reason but I say so"
What little substance you actually produced boils down to :very-intelligent: "It doesn't exist so you shouldn't make it"
So yeah. Go fucking read 5 minutes worth of research or shut the fuck up about it. Your answer is trite. Like you've never argued about this without reverting to your lazy debatebro shit
It's like I never left :reddit-logo:
Why don't you go back where you'll fit in better?
A truly embarrassing post to make in the wake of getting prissy about being a fanboy for sci fi nuclear power.
:so-true: once again you have replied to me which confirms everything I said about you. I'm from reddit.
I doubt that having more nuclear plants would have put much of a dent in our consumption of fossil fuels. We simply would have increased energy consumption.
I'd love to go nuclear but you think the US is responsible enough for that?
How many nukes have the US LOST again? When exactly is Yucca mountain going to be operational? Oh and how's the cleanup of the hanford site going?
If fossil fuels hadn't been subsidized to such an extreme degree for the last fifty years the energy landscape would be completely different and renewables would be much more competitive. Keeping nuclear down isn't great but it's a drop in the bucket compared to that.
Ah, yes, because there are no other clean energy options that we've known about for decades.
What if we just stopped using so much energy? :anprim-pat:
I mean de-growth will have to unironically happen in first world countries, but definitely not in an Anprim way I hope. More like, there's no need for everyone to have a car. Castro actually had a great interview on this, capitalism creating lifestyles that are incompatible with reality in the first world.
I mean yeah, the anprim thing is mostly a joke and honestly I don't think most people (anprims included) could agree what anprim really means or where the line should be drawn
There's gotta be at least one madlad out there who believes fire is too much tech for humanity
I mean Pol Pot was anti glasses that help you see so...
👓:anprim-pat:
Where is the west planning to get their uranium and dump their nuclear waste? You know, the kind that stays around for a very long time. And what about the toxic and potentially radioactive mining waste?
Do we even have the capacity to mine that much uranium without resorting to stuff like open pit uranium mines in the global south? Only 10% of world power is nuclear. The current coal mining situation definitely is not good, TB is still one of the leading causes of death in countries that have large mining sectors. Now imagine that with uranium mines.
Unless bleeder reactors become very efficient, there is simply not enough uranium out there that can be mined economically to power the majority of the world for a long period of time, unless you plan to turn Australia into one giant open pit uranium mine (very critical support to that idea lol, but not really of course as it will hurt marginalised people the most).
Nuclear power, while not renewable power, has the same pitfalls. There is simply not enough resources on the planet to run it for any long period of time as the majority of our electricity. In the same way there is not enough litium and raw materials to make solar panels and battery packs for the entire world, there is not enough uranium.
Both renewables and nuclear have a place in modern energy plans, and fossil fuels need to go out the window, but that's ignoring the elephant in the room. We simply (mainly the first world) consume too much. No amount of nuclear energy or innovation in renewables is going to dig us out of that hole.
