11
Myth vs. fact: Is nuclear power really a climate solution? - Liberation News
(www.liberationnews.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2025
11 points (86.7% liked)
Earth
12895 readers
2 users here now
The world’s #1 planet!
A community for the discussion of the environment, climate change, ecology, sustainability, nature, and pictures of cute wild animals.
Socialism is the only path out of the global ecological crisis.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
This is oil company propaganda. Nuclear is needed to transition. All of their complaints are oil company talking points about nuclear. Their solution is "just do nothing cause there isnt tech out there tonheat water besides ff"
Almost all of these are totally fucking wrong.
"Their solution is "just do nothing cause there isnt tech out there tonheat water besides ff""
To be clear, the psl's solution is not to "do nothing", it's to overthrow the capitalist government and do massive state investment in solar, wind and other renewables.
What about overthrow the capitalist government and do massive investments in solar, wind, other renewables and nuclear energy?
The biggest issue with nuclear (centralized and controlled energy production by a capitalist govt) dissapears without the capitalist govt.
Thats cool and good. The grid itself will take more than 50 years to modify in a way that can handle the intermittent production of wind/solar. That gap needs to be filled by something other than fucking coal plants. 10 -20 to convert to nuclear saves us at least 30 years of FF emissions. The problem isnt sheer generation, . Renewables can make the power. its about generating or absorbing at the right times. Load and output are in a constant balancing act.
Long term yeah nuclear should be phased out and replaced with massive hydro lake batteries but policy that refuses to build nuclear now is just forcing coal/oil plants to be needed. This is why oil companies lobby all these exact same talking points.
Hydro. There you go. We don't need nuclear we need a combo of renewables. Somehow it is possible do the top countries here just have an amazing magical grid? 70 countries with more than half from renewables https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production
Geography olays a big role there. There are many places where the capacity of hydro needed requires more than is environmentally safe to dam. We would have to have gigantic mega projects to build new lakes and resivoirs. (Much slower and more labor intensive than building nuclear plants)
If nuclear doesn't fill the gaps it will be fossil fuels.In the current moment, an 'always no matter what' anti nuclear stance is just a pro oil and coal stance.
How much resivoirs does denmark have? You just bought imto nuclear pro stance
Nuclear is outdated, ineffective, expensive and dangerous. No its not needed.