this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2082 points (94.4% liked)

World News

39395 readers
2750 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] redempt@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

safety and efficiency will be improved by investment in nuclear. storage needs are dramatically reduced because we now have reactors that can run off of the waste of other reactors, "recycling" it and massively improving efficiency while reducing waste. yes, there are concerns with nuclear, but opposing nuclear is a losing battle. we need nuclear, and yes, the tech needs to develop further, but we won't get that without investing in it today.

[–] Cornerspace@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This. It amazes me how many people are anti nuclear but don't understand what it is, how it's waste can be recycled and how it is less harmful to the environment than wind and solar. Yes you read that correctly.

[–] steelrat@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's less surprising when you realize the founder of greenpeace was drummed out of the org over this same issue.

[–] Pringles@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you have a source on that? I googled the founders of greenpeace, but I didn't find any reference to your claim.

[–] steelrat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

not really my jam, but even wikipedia mentions division over golden rice which is also pretty dumb.

here's one from '08 politico.

a lot of things like this gets memory holed as to not be so obvious about having luxury beliefs where they don't mind how many people starve as long as it pushes their particular facet of a nuanced agenda imho.

[–] UnD3Rgr0uNDCL0wN@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well if you want less harmful than wind and solar, why not go for less harmful than nuclear and just go geothermal with the new ultradeep drilling techniques? Literally the 450-1000C on tap as and when we need it

[–] rusticus@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because this is not currently deployed at scale. We are way past "waiting for the next great technology".

[–] UnD3Rgr0uNDCL0wN@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Neither is nuclear now is it.

[–] lethargy9220@jlai.lu 5 points 1 year ago

Conventional nuclear is deployed at scale, especially in the USA, China, and France.

[–] Twelve20two@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

Would it be deployable to most major city areas that have easy access to water?

[–] rusticus@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

You forgot the /s