LustyArgonian @ LustyArgonianMana @lemmy.world

Go to BlueSky for political news. Lemmy news and politics is compromised

---

Read more

Posts

17

Comments

1,326

Joined

1 yr. ago

Arguably that makes nuclear plants safer, because attacking nations won't want to bomb them and risk escalating to a nuclear war. They have no problem bombing power stations and oil refineries, though.

That's because nuclear is arbitrarily forced to be expensive due to regulations and legal stuff. If that wasn't included in the price itself, it would be significantly cheaper. However, nuclear took such a big hit politically that it increased costs as less plants were built. It's not so much that renewables are per se cheaper, but rather than nuclear gets artifically inflated. Further, I'm not opposed to renewables, I just think nuclear is needed in addition to renewables since it is better for carbon emissions and we have a carbon issue. It also saves on space where renewables can cause greater environmental impact in terms of taking up space or wildlife fatalities.

Again, weird you don't mention wave or geothermal at all as renewables that have access to near constant power generation.

Link 'em

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/10/planetary-boundaries-breached-nature-climate-stories/

We can't emit more carbon. Like really, we cannot. We have to sequester it. Gas plants still emit CO2. Nuclear is fine and works well, and doesn't emit CO2.

Your opinion doesn't matter and you don't need to police my emotions or reactions

I attended an engineering college for my engineering degree.

And no, we specifically discussed this about lanes and trains and buses etc. Just like we discussed nuclear energy.

How do they sequester the carbon they emit? Do you have a link to an article that can explain what you're saying? Or are you saying its carbon emissions are less than coal or gas, which is different than not emitting anything at all?

Yes, there are, especially if you don't want to deforest land. And wind and solar and not constant sources. A mix of sources are needed. That you havent mentioned geothermal or wave energy shows that you're kinda out of your depth here. I've gone to many engineering seminars about this, we must have a mix of energy sources and we must use nuclear if our goal is to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions. Other sources of energy all emit too much carbon.

Again, your opinion is so bad it's a compliment to be against you

But renewables aren't being replaced with this, fossil fuels are. The grid level storage is significant and requires significant mining and upkeep for that, and it's very inefficient. We need blended energy sources for safety, with a mix of water, wind, wave, solar, geothermal, and nuclear

Way to miss both of my points. Read it again.

This, it's also pretty much the ONLY technology we have that can be near carbon neutral over time (mainly releasing carbon in the cement to make the plant, then to a lesser extent, mining to dig up and refine material, and transport of workers and goods).

The cost associated with nuclear is due to regulation and legal issues and not relating to the cost to build the actual plant itself so much. There are small scale reactors and many options. Yes it should be used wisely but we can't keep burning fossil fuels.

Yeah but this is for areas that don't get enough sun or wind to meet their energy needs. The make small scale nuclear reactors as well. And cities themselves, being supplied by nuclear plants, are juicy military targets too. If a bomb lands anywhere near a city including the plant, it's bad

The costs in both time and money to build nuclear are due to regulations and NIMBY legal stuff, and not actually relating to the technology itself being built. If they can use some of the same locations then that should help

Good, nuclear is one of the only ways we will be able to address carbon emissions

Great, thanks for your opinion. I don't care about it, but it's there.

Gee, yet another month where Lemmy users go all out to protect creeps

You're doing a lot of legwork to defend someone who fantasizes about and researches extensively children watching adults have sex, and then uses that research to justify the idea to other adults

We aren't even arguing about this, you giant creep who ALWAYS HAS TO GO TO BAT FOR THIS TOPIC REPEATEDLY.

It's meant to LOOK LIKE a 14 yr old because it is SEEDED OFF 14 YR OLDS so it's indeed CHILD PORN that is EASILY ACCESSED ON GOOGLE per the original commenter claim that people have to be going to dark places to see this - NO, it's literally in nearly ALL AI TOP SEARCHES. And it indeed counts for LEGAL PURPOSES in MOST STATES as child porn even if drawn or created with AI. How many porn AI models look like Scarlett Johansson because they are SEEDED WITH VER FACE. Now imagine who the CHILD MODELS are seeding from

You're one of the people I am talking about when I say Lemmy has a lot of creepy pedos on it FYI to all the readers, look at their history