• thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, I don't understand why building a relatively clean energy source is a bad thing. Reactors are now like 3+ generations past the versions that were super dangerous. Hell, they even have reactors that can use spent fuel from other reactors.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oil lobby and other interests. Follow the money. Plus it's easy to play on people's fears about radioactive waste.

      Oh well, countries that know what's what just quietly build and use their reactors and go about their business. Finland for example is set for a while now.

        • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Which is ironic because they like electric vehicles, and spent car batteries will soon become just as big of a problem as nuclear waste.

          It's a bit of "not seeing the forest for the trees" situation, we have an immediate climate problem we're trying to stave off, if these are the things that will wean us off fossil energy than that's what we have to do for now and we'll cross that other bridge when we come to it.

          • Richard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The fallacy here is that any reactor that you initiate for planning even immediately at this very moment will come years or decades too late to affect our power composition and keep us under 1.5°C, which means that such projects distract society from the importance of green/renewable energy solutions like wind or solar, which we CAN expand very quickly and which WILL have a measurable effect on mitigating the effects of climate change. Solar and wind are the only things that can replace fossil in time.

            • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              True, but let's not forget that there are lots of perfectly good reactors sitting around unused, who could be brought back online within a practical time frame. Existing reactors is really what the debate is about, not those that don't exist.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Someone on here made an interesting argument showing how conservative politicians are actually pushing nuclear hard. They do this to steer interest away from other renewables, but also because they know nuclear will go nowhere. It’s politically unviable with voters and regulatory bodies. The point is that the bottommost issue is public perception and bias against it. If we could overcome that, we’d at least have a fighting chance.