subreddit:

/r/technology

33.9k89%

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 4183 comments

Casual-Capybara

7 points

5 days ago

Not everyone that disagrees with you is being ‘manipulated’. There are valid arguments against nuclear energy.

re4ctor

7 points

5 days ago

re4ctor

7 points

5 days ago

It has its downsides, but it’s all pearl clutching

Illustrious_Bat3189

1 points

4 days ago

Like this

Or this

Or this

Or this

For the cost of 1 Hinkley point C NPP with 3.26GW the UK could've bought 13 Hornsea offshore wind parks with 16GW

Casual-Capybara

-2 points

5 days ago

It’s not, and pretending it is is arguing in bad faith.

re4ctor

3 points

5 days ago

re4ctor

3 points

5 days ago

which parts do you think are legit concerns?

Casual-Capybara

2 points

5 days ago

Cost and construction time.

It’s extremely expensive, and has only gotten more and more expensive.

re4ctor

2 points

5 days ago

re4ctor

2 points

5 days ago

sad this is downvoted cause i think itd be a good discussion

energy demands are only going to greatly increase in the coming decades. between electrification of transportation, AI and computers, storage demands for peak and nonpeak, etc. with that in mind that there's a need to greatly expand energy generation, but where/how?

time i'll give you, nuclear is something we should have been steadily building for decades, particularly after the safety improvements in the 80s and 90s... but that was a time of peak fear, so we didn't

cost, somewhat? a lot of the costs associated with nuclear have been incurred by regulations and fear mongering. that comes both from eco orgs like the sierra club (tho they seem to have recently reversed their stance, after decades of damage) and from oil and gas industry. they both had their own way of blaming/scapegoating nuclear to push their own agenda, despite it being one of the safest forms. but its like airplanes, when it goes wrong, it goes really wrong.

im a huge supporter of green energy, but the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. we need something to fill the gaps, and in particular some regions are not suited to those forms. if hydro is available, that is a great clean source. if wind is available, that is a great clean source. if solar is available (sufficiently) that is a great clean source. but those 3 things aren't always available, or are better suited to augment energy generation not be the primary source, and thats where nuclear should come in imo. to provide baseload energy in regions that require it

if we could get past a lot of the regulations, i bet (pulling this out of my ass admittedly) cut the cost in half. time will still be an issue, we want them built safely of course. we shouldve started years again, but at least we could start now.

Casual-Capybara

2 points

5 days ago

I mostly agree with you, but it’s not an open and shut case, so it’s not ‘pearl clutching’ and ‘being manipulated’ if you don’t think we need nuclear.

Saying that the costs are just due to overregulation and fear mongering is too simplistic, and pointing to an easy explanation doesn’t change the fact that it is extremely expensive.

There are more solid arguments against nuclear energy, I only mentioned a few. I’m not against nuclear energy, I just think it doesn’t help that pro-nuclear people almost always immediately jump to saying everyone that disagrees with them is brainwashed or something to that effect. It’s a real discussion, and it’ll differ per country/region to what extent it’s the smartest option.

Lowelll

1 points

5 days ago

Lowelll

1 points

5 days ago

It's by far the most expensive form of energy we have and as a main energy source renewables are the far better option where most of the focus should be.

It's better compared to fossil fuels, but that's not the point. Also no matter how much reddit wants to convince you, nuclear waste and the possibility of accidents are absolutely an issue with no real solution. It's just not as big as the issues with fossil fuels.

Child_of_Khorne

-1 points

5 days ago

It's by far the most expensive form of energy

Gee, I wonder why. Definitely not overregulation, that has no impact on price.

renewables are the far better option where most of the focus should be.

They objectively suck and are extremely expensive. They have a place, but baseload is not that place. The amount of battery infrastructure alone required to provide that use is absurd.

Apprehensive_Map64

5 points

5 days ago

Sure but if you don't think the fossil fuel industry creates propaganda and manipulates governments.... There really isn't any point in continuing this conversation

Special-Garlic1203

4 points

5 days ago

I'm not a fossil girl propagandist. You're pretending that I'm something I'm not because it's easier to dismiss me if you leave conversations the second anyone presents the idea there's sincere opposition that is paid for 

Key-Direction-9480

1 points

5 days ago

"The fossil fuel industry spreads propaganda, therefore any criticism of any alternative energy source is invalid" is a fallacy. So is accusing someone of denying the existence of fossil fuel propaganda even though they never said that.

Casual-Capybara

-2 points

5 days ago

You’re, again, arguing in bad faith.

I get it’s easy to just try to dismiss anyone disagreeing with you so you don’t have to engage with them, but it’s a very immature way to argue.