351
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 hours ago

There's a great distinction that Norwegian philosopher and deep ecologist Anre Naess makes between long-range and short-range movements which I think helps explain the disagreement a little.

In the short term, we need to reduce CO2 for our own survival. Nuclear helps this, so from this angle it seems counterproductive for anyone who claims concern over the environment to object to its development.

In the long term, humans need to transition away from a society based on resource extraction, and long term damage. It's a lot harder to see how nuclear helps with this- mining and enriching uranium are destructive processes, and nuclear waste needs containment for thousands of years.

Our current situation is pretty critical, so I think it's pretty legitimate to think that we might need to make some compromises between the long and short term. But I think the distinction makes it a lot clearer about why people seem to be shouting passed each other sometimes.

[-] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

The electrical grid, from production, distribution, and delivery, to the outlets in your home/business, is a very complex and distinctly unique system filled with challenges at all points.

I know just enough about all of it to get myself into trouble, or, more frequently, keep myself out of trouble. IMO, nuclear, whether in the form of SMR or something else, should be built to handle the base loads, aka, the power that is always needed, and not necessarily any more than that.

The volatile loads that fluctuate throughout the day, that's what I'm not sure the best method to address. Is it wind/hydro, which are fairly consistent (the latter more than the former, in terms of consistency), or solar + energy storage, which may be batteries, or some other method of storing the power?

I dunno, I'm no expert. But given the reliability of nuclear, building more or less static systems with it that will supply base loads, seems like a no brainer. We will always need at least that much power, let's get it from somewhere that can push it out 24/7/365 for years with little to no maintenance. Obviously, all nuclear production needs to be monitored, regardless of the reactor type.... For safety. But if the system is basically always doing the same thing, with the same output, constantly, it shouldn't require a lot of variance.

[-] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 1 points 56 minutes ago

I think those are pros of nuclear. The alternative to a static system like that would be a very diverse flexible one with lots of different energy types and markets to encourage users to flex usage up or down.

I'm not trying to make a case either way though, just explaining what perspectives might lead people to be concerned about climate change and still anti-nuclear.

this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
351 points (93.5% liked)

solarpunk memes

2874 readers
901 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS