• surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Stein and the Greens are also rabidly anti-nuclear, continuing to repeat outdated and debunked nonsense. We can’t plausibly maintain this level of energy use on renewables alone.

    That being said, the writer’s claim that Harris is better on climate than Stein is absolutely ridiculous. The Biden/Harris admin set records for fossil fuel extractions, strongly support fracking, waived environmental protections to build Trump’s border wall faster, and want to ban imports of EV’s and solar panels. Plus, their escalating militarism is a carbon nightmare.

    Rhetoric won’t save us.

    • huginn@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’m pro nuclear as well but we absolutely can maintain this level of energy consumption on renewables alone.

      The question is cost and risk - I’m for diversification of our grid which includes nuclear.

      But it is getting to the point where renewables with backups will be cheaper than coal. That’s absolutely something you can run the entire grid off of. You can balance storage requirements with excess production capacity that gets shuttered over the summer etc etc

      • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        The backup is nuclear.

        I don’t really care what it costs. We’re trying to save the habitability of the planet. Damn the cost.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          OK, then we just deploy a whole lot of storage capacity as fast as we can to support solar and wind. Nuclear only makes sense if it’s cheaper than that, and it’s not.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Not quite sure which way you’re pointing. Nuclear is ridiculously expensive up front. It has to run for a long time at 100% to make any kind of economic sense.

    • bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Yeah, no. Nuclear is a con. Don‘t believe and spread the energy industry‘s lies. They’re shitting on renewables, because they want consumers dependant on their crap which needs to be subsidised by the state because it’s not economically viable. Thank you.

      • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s easy to tell who’s been propagandized, because they care more about how much it will cost than actually saving the planet.

        • bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 month ago

          Ah, you assume there’s (or will be) unlimited funds set aside to fight climate change?
          If that is so, why not plaster deserts with solar panels and the oceans with wind turbines. Would go a bit quicker than the 10-20 years it takes to finalise one nuclear power plant. The nuclear hype has no scientific basis.

          • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            I don’t assume unlimited funds. I know that the only way we can actually address climate change is to overthrow the capitalists driving the pollution. Ending their wars would provide far more than adequate funding, even before wealth redistribution.

            I can’t imagine being so uninformed that you believe the advantages of nuclear energy has no scientific basis. On par with the flat earthers.

            • bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Jesus man, you want to end capitalism but fall for one of its biggest outfits? Also, right now there is just the capitalist reality and within that science tells us, that nuclear is economically not good enough to support the green transformation. I am fine with overthrowing capitalism, but till then we have to somehow manage with a reality that is inseparable from it.

              • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                Nuclear is not capitalists’ “biggest outfit.” You’re thinking of oil, and they pay astroturfers to convince people like you to be anti-nuclear.

                • bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  I’m talking about the Energy Companies

                  Edit: the claim that the oil industry paid anyone to stop nuclear is a right wing lie. Please look it up, I don’t have the nerve for it anymore.

                  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    the claim that the oil industry paid anyone to stop nuclear is a right wing lie.

                    Oil lobby bot confirmed.