all of the plants would be privately-owned by Elon Musk-type bazinga brains who’d lobby congress to strip away all safety regulations for the sake of profit maximization. They’d be poorly managed and exist exclusively in impoverished, mostly black and brown areas.
Is this an issue with nuclear power or an issue with capitalism?
It's not like fossil fuels or green energy are worker owned co-ops owned by the people
My issue with nuclear is that even with all the saftey regulations in the world, a natural disaster, a war or any number of other things can and will happen, and then you've poisoned a whole region for decades. What is wrong with using renewable energy? Why do we need to harness the atom just to power treats? Save the fissile material for something epic like a space station the size of a city or something.
Nothing except that we literally don't have the resources to scour the earth to meet the energy demands of an entire planet.
and then you’ve poisoned a whole region for decades.
I'm sure the poisoned watersheds of mining waste for cobalt, lithum, and other rare minerals are completely recoverable as toxic lead and waste seeps into the soil.
Not to mention the absolute disaster that oil has turned the Niger river delta into.
My issue with nuclear is that even with all the saftey regulations in the world, a natural disaster, a war or any number of other things can and will happen, and then you’ve poisoned a whole region for decades. What is wrong with using renewable energy?
Nuclear is the only energy source that would only require a very large decrease in our collective quality of life to try and survive climate change, instead of a gigantic one if we went with renewables only. Most likely even both will not be enough, mind you.
Also, producing renewables at such a scale means an absolute disaster ecologically to extract, process, and transport the resources required.
a natural disaster, a war or any number of other things can and will happen, and then you’ve poisoned a whole region for decades
It's not like we're stuck at Chernobyl level standards. "Poisoned a whole region for decades" is not a thing that would happen. Fukushima wasn't "poisoned for decades" despite being an absolute fuckup.
Save the fissile material for something epic like a space station the size of a city or something.
Gotta hand it to you, this might be the single best case against (earth-based) fissile energy that I've ever seen. And I mean that genuinely :meow-hug: , a floating space city powered by angry rocks would be genuinely cool.
pointing out hairbrained sci-fi things i find to be cool = being a redditor. 80 billion brain cells and you could only bring them together to try to flex on someone being nice. hexbear feels more and more like im at a jokerfied academic conference with dunning-kreuger leftists, more than an internet community. no wonder virtually no one posts.
Is this an issue with nuclear power or an issue with capitalism?
It's not like fossil fuels or green energy are worker owned co-ops owned by the people
It's even still better than them owning fossil fuel plants.
My issue with nuclear is that even with all the saftey regulations in the world, a natural disaster, a war or any number of other things can and will happen, and then you've poisoned a whole region for decades. What is wrong with using renewable energy? Why do we need to harness the atom just to power treats? Save the fissile material for something epic like a space station the size of a city or something.
Nothing except that we literally don't have the resources to scour the earth to meet the energy demands of an entire planet.
I'm sure the poisoned watersheds of mining waste for cobalt, lithum, and other rare minerals are completely recoverable as toxic lead and waste seeps into the soil.
Not to mention the absolute disaster that oil has turned the Niger river delta into.
deleted by creator
A refinery being bombed or earthquake isn't that different.
Nuclear is the only energy source that would only require a very large decrease in our collective quality of life to try and survive climate change, instead of a gigantic one if we went with renewables only. Most likely even both will not be enough, mind you.
Also, producing renewables at such a scale means an absolute disaster ecologically to extract, process, and transport the resources required.
Could you point me to a source regarding the resource extraction required to produce renewables at scale?
IEA study and conference on YT here. Skip to the key findings, you'll find some charts.
Thank you.
Because it's the only practical alternative to fosil fuel.
And a small coal plant actually emits more radiation in a month than a large nuclear plant emits in years.
It's not like we're stuck at Chernobyl level standards. "Poisoned a whole region for decades" is not a thing that would happen. Fukushima wasn't "poisoned for decades" despite being an absolute fuckup.
Gotta hand it to you, this might be the single best case against (earth-based) fissile energy that I've ever seen. And I mean that genuinely :meow-hug: , a floating space city powered by angry rocks would be genuinely cool.
You are overly swayed by rhetoric instead of logic.
Thought I was on reddit for a moment, reading this comment.
pointing out hairbrained sci-fi things i find to be cool = being a redditor. 80 billion brain cells and you could only bring them together to try to flex on someone being nice. hexbear feels more and more like im at a jokerfied academic conference with dunning-kreuger leftists, more than an internet community. no wonder virtually no one posts.
K
deleted by creator
Nukes have exclusions zones when bazinga brains want to cut corners and squeeze a bit more out of the angry atomic bee machines.
This applies to any energy source.