• CommanderM2192@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    And there are solid counter-arguments to those. Would we have long lead times if nuclear power had been developed to the point where it was easier to build and we had more workers already trained in building them?

    The more experienced construction workers you have, the more experienced scientists and engineers making necessary components, the cheaper it gets. Look at how expensive computers used to be compared to today. If we hadn’t of had Luddites getting in the way of nuclear power for half a century then we wouldn’t have this issue.

    All the more reason to move forward with nuclear power and continue improving it before it really is too late.

    “Long lead times” is utter, fucking bullshit. I’m sick and tired of “pro-environment” useful idiots shilling against nuclear power. What’s your alternative? Renewables that can’t scale to meet demand due to the laws of physics, geography, and engineering limitations? More coal and oil plants? Huge battery farms for storing electricity from renewables; the kind of batteries that devastate the environment with mining and destroy third world communities? Fusion power plants in two centuries? Get real and stop being a moron.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m sick and tired of “pro-environment” useful idiots shilling against nuclear power

      You know that the idea we should be investing in nuclear is being pushed by the very same people who for decades were telling us we didn’t need to worry about climate change, right?

      They’re trying to get “useful idiots”, as you so eloquently put it, to also support nuclear energy, rather than going all-in on renewables.

      The “useful idiots” in this scenario are not the people opposing nuclear. They’re the ones suggesting it’s actually an economical idea, and in so doing either explicitly or (more often) implicitly suggesting that we shouldn’t invest too much in actual renewable energy.

      • CommanderM2192@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why do you think it has to be only one or the other? Do you really think this is a problem with a single choice that fixes it? Where is your critical thinking?

        There is no “all-in” on renewables. Renewables as they are today aren’t truly renewable. Where’s the lithium going to infinitely come from for batteries? How about the cadmium used to manufacture some of the most efficient and long lasting solar panels? How are we going to clean those up? I can bring up a TON of issues with “renewables”. That doesn’t mean we don’t use them.

        Stop being so simple minded, this is the most complicated problem we’ve ever faced and it cannot be solved with a simplistic “all-in” investment in renewables. I’m not even suggesting nuclear is an “economical” idea. The only person here caring about “economical” are the anti-nuclear shills like you.

        We’re past the point of needing to be concerned with economical. The reality is that nuclear power is the cleanest, most effective source of power we have right now. You really need to educate yourself on renewables, the manufacturing process behind them, and the infrastructure required to make them viable. They aren’t as “clean” or “renewable” as you think.

        Nuclear, solar, wind, and hydropower are what we need. You cannot achieve clean energy without nuclear and hydropower. It’s literally physically impossible. The laws of physics are not on your side and I really don’t know how to get this through to Luddites any more.

      • kool_newt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right, also nuclear power helps maintain centralization and authoritarian control of populations. Decentralization everywhere is the future for both energy and security reasons.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Eh, I agree that decentralisation is good, but I don’t think you need such an extreme conspiracy to explain why.

          It’s not about “authoritarian control”. It’s just about corporate profits.

          • kool_newt@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Money and power, it’s both. I agree that during “normal” times it’s primarily greed driving centralization, at least of things like electricity generation so that usage can be metered and charged for.

            But here are people out there that want power and they are willing to do extreme things to get or keep it. Of the top of my head:

            • Trump
            • Putin
            • Xi
            • pretty much any political party
            • pretty much any industry organization (energy industry, etc)

            I’m sure you’ve heard about other countries having societal issues and the state shuts down the internet? This is what centralization makes possible. It’s been done, it will be done again. When power is at risk, extreme measures are taken, and centralization facilitates this.

    • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not just construction workers, it’s the management, it’s the regulators, it’s the suppliers, and the design and engineering teams. Most countries have lost all of that capability apart from places like South Korea, Finland, Russia, France and China.

      China currently has 22 nuclear reactors under construction, 70 in the planning phase, and they currently operate 55. Well that is less than the United States, they will surpass the US soon. They seem to have figured it out.

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

      If we hadn’t of had Luddites getting in the way of nuclear power for half a century then we wouldn’t have this issue.

      I think this insults Luddites. Luddites are not stupid to get in a way of nuclear power.