SomeLemmyUser

You got mislead my dude. Probably because there’s lot of propaganda for nuclear as it is needed to offload costs of building nuclear weapons, so especially USA, France and China are campaigning hard.

We dont need another finite fossil resource oligarchs can use to control us, we need to change societies habits so it complies with energy production. For the actually relevant parts its easy enough to store the energy. Batteries are not the only possibility, water elevation, hydrogen, pressure cells just to name a few. But even if batteries were the only ones, it’s still worth manufacturing them compared to the costs of managing nuclear waste for timescales longer than human build structures exists.

Did a medieval person know what wages today would be? No Do you know what the nuclear end storage would cost in 1000 years? No But even for the time we can for see, in the best case scenario its an economically bad decission, in the worst case we poison the whole planet to a degree where no human life can exist.

I agree with most of the comment, but it really bothers me people still call nuclear “clean”, it isn’t, its the opposite. Yes no co2, but the effects of burnt nuclear fuel are way worse. Yes the crisis comes slower than the current climate crisis but it last for way longer and is way harder to manage.

Co2 I. The atmosphere in large amounts is bad for humanity, no question, we should stop that, but with co2 we at least have an advanced ecosystem which will bring the co2 levels down relatively quickly on human time scales if we stop emitting before the ecosystem is irreparable damaged, with nuclear we dont. There us exactly one way to get rid of radioactive waste, and that is to wait till it stops radiating by itself, magnitudes longer than it takes for co2 to get absorbed by plants.

Well okay, i would not argue to stop buying Cooper. I wouldn’t even argue against mining uranium in small doses for science, smoke detectors and whatnot.

My point is that extracting stuff from the ground is a big undertaking, especially when trying to do it in a way safe for workers. It is not good for humanity to do that, just to burn it, when there are alternatives.

I doubt that most mines are actually owned by worker cooperatives and progressive states, but even if so, the USA has a history of making sure they get enough of their primary energy source for cheap, even if that means invading countries, murdering union people or straight up installing puppet governments. Also here in the EU, conservatives have a history of blocking any legislation that would force company’s to respect human rights outside of the EU. So a lot of the materials used in Europe are not ethically sourced (clothes, caffe, cacoa, lithium, stone are the ones I know about having lots of child labour and wages far beyond the European minimum wage) I assume if uranium prices go up thanks to lots of demand, people here will buy the cheapest, which probably is not ethically from nations/corporations respecting human rights, as respecting human dignity adds cost.

Depending on a finite recource from other countries is hardly evaded in modern capitalism, but making your primary energy source one, when you have other options is just dumb.

I was pulling a analogy to oil, where the EU is buying from Saudi Arabia for example, a country not really famous for human rights, Russia (same) and america (facist).

Giving the powefull corporations and oil spring/fracking site owners there lots of money every year seldom changes the life of ordinary people there for the better.

Maybe it would all be different with uranium, but I doubt that.

Also I am pretty sure as soon as nuclear waste starts really piling up privileged countries would be pretty fast to get it out of there land and onto some less fortunate nation.

I just think if we want to stop using a finite fossil recource which pollutes our world for a few hundred years its not a good idea to substitute it with a finite fossil resource which pollutes our world for a few thousand years, if we have a cheap, renewables alternative available. Mist sane persons would think that way

The only problem is, USA, France and China really really want to build nuclear bombs, but pushing so much money into it that they can pay it as military expanses is to much even for them. So we have lits of propaganda, that nuclear power is good, or even necessary, so most of the costs can be sold as infrastructure to the voters.

I never in my life have met a person who has a good plan on how to manage nuclear waste in timescales in which societys rise and fall, cultures get started and forgotten, etc. Pp. In a way which is even near practical not to speak of Economically feasable. You think medical people could calculate the wage of someone guarding whatever today? Mining is a tangebale aspect, bad to depend on, but graspable, controlling the waste isnt

Hahaha nuclear has basically no co2 output so its not bad for the climate Dont even need to read further.

Lead is also not bad for your health, because it doesn’t contain cyanide - same level of arguing

Things that produce co2 in large amounts are bad for the environment and need to be abandoned, no question, but that doesn’t mean everything which doesn’t produce co2 is good for the environment lol

I fully agree with you that my ancestors have chosen the path of violence and colonization, which I absolutely condemn and try to make up for in my every day live.

And you are right, I dont know about uranian mines in Chile, nice that its state owned and actually beneficial for the area.

I understand if you argue for nuclear if the mines have developed your region and is actually beneficial to the people from an emotional point of view.

You hit me with an argumentum ad hominem, which is kind of deserved by what the society I live in did to a lot of the world (even if I myself try to fight that, lots of the privileges I have stem from exactly those past oppressions, can’t change that) but its still an argumentum ad hominem, and therefore not really contributing to the matter at hand

Nuclear is bad for humanity, even if I live in Europe.

Bruh

1. Renawbles are capable of generating a ton of energy manageable distances from where they are used in most cases, even for the cases which they are not it is orders of magnitudes cheaper and better for environment if you make green hydrogen, ship it to where its needed and convert it back into current where you need it considered the absurd amounts of time and cost it takes to manage nuclear waste. Not even considering the cost to mine and ship nuclear fuel, build the reactor and safely dispose of it at the end of its lifespan as its miniscule compared to maintain any sort of storage building for a time longer than the time between humanitys first building and now.

2. Mining is mostly done by people living under slave like conditions in poor countries. Even thinking having a energy source which needs to CONTINUOUSLY BURN MINED RECOURCES to keep outputting any energy at all is superior to a energy source which NEEDS MINED RESOURCES ONCE TO CONTINUOUSLY output energy until broken by external forces shows the absurdity of your argument

Solar panels need silicium (literally sand) and bor, apart from some plastics and structural metal and glass. Those are way easier and cleaner to mine then radioactive materials, and bor is needed in really small amounts, AND IT DOESNT GET BURNED, YOU CAN REUSE IT.

3.Thinking that smashing a train against something tells you anything about the properties of a material when exposed to time spans of degradation many orders of magnitude bigger than the time humans even started researching material properties…I dont even know where to start with this “argument” its bs on so many levels

1 if we stop debating the same dumb ideas for centuries maybe my anger will fade

2 I really hope you are ragebaiting, comparing nuclear to trains is sooo out there. A train is good for the climate, good for socioeconomic fairness (cheap), easy to build, easy to change and has basically no waste at all. Nuclear is bad for the climate, has the worst waste humanity can produce, is socioeconomically bad for everyone near the waste or working in the mines under inhumane coditions, the waste will last longer than the oldest human made structure, we do not have the tools to plan for that kind of timespan AT ALL, everyone saying he can build structures safe for that time is lying or mislead. And nuclear is hard and expensive to build.

No, we dont need nuclear, no matter what your personal experience with bicycles is. No, opposing nuclear is not promoting coal, dunno who told you this, but its wrong. Renewables are the way to go. We already have ways to store renewable energy, and we have just started researching it there is a lot more to come, fission is basically optimized and still way worse. Even in unicorn situations where our storage is not sufficient there are better alternatives than nuclear, bio-gas for example.

The only reason someone would want nuclear is to offload costs of building bombs and submarines to the public otherwise needed to be played for by military budget.

There is not a single reason someone to build reactors, especially not trains and bikes.

Nobody is saying we should build coal plant instead of nuclear, that’s the strawman. Every godamm nuclear defender always uses.

“but there are worse energy sources”

Yes we fckin know, doesn’t make your energy good.

Keep you strawman false arguments to yourself until nuclear has less cost and less contamination then renewables (forever).

Forcing nuclear down our throats while renewables are a thing is so wild. And people actually defend nuclear.

You want mining of sparse minerals by workers in inhuman conditions? Check

You want a contamination which will exist for longer than the oldest human build structure? Check (because the barrels you made made indestructible, just dont test this pls)

You want centralized energy way more expansive than solar or wind? Check

There are literally no upsides of nuclear against renewables and a battery.