[throwawaylinux]

It's not a false choice. Anti nuclear is pro-fossil-fuel.

I've been hearing the pro-fossil-fuel misinformation that nuclear is 10 years too late for the past 20 years at least. Many of the same people saying this were also the ones 5 years ago insisting that coal was dead and renewables killed it.

Take a look at thermal coal prices, https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal and look up global coal consumption and realize we may not even have hit peak coal yet, let alone any real prospect of a massive short term reduction rather than a very long slow decline.

They were wrong about that too.

[shadowfaxRodeo]

If you think there's no prospect of coal consumption going down, then we're headed for global calamity.

Knowing that it's a likely scenario that the world becomes wildly unpredictable, it's not responsible to also build nuclear reactors that require stability and maintenance to be safe.

[throwawaylinux]

I mean look at history and forecast graphs. E.g.,

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy?cou...

Coal might be around peak just now, but it's largely been squeezed by oil and gas, not renewables. Which are at least better than increasing coal usage, but not solving the problem. Coal prices have also been strong in part due to rising oil prices making coal more viable. This does not look like an energy source that has been destroyed by renewables as we had been promised 5-10 years ago. Just continuing to claim renewables will solve everything without actually asking what went wrong with the earlier claims, and continuing to ignore nuclear which has been a proven solution to the problem for 50 years, is a huge, arrogant gamble when we are facing as massive a problem as climate change.

There is also a very real possibility of just no viable shift away from fossil fuels and coal, or at least a very long tail of decades more of greenhouse gas emissions that exceed even today's record numbers. 2050 net zero is widely claimed by many big polluters, but there is a real question of whether they are willing or able to actually meet it, and apparently already signs its just kicking the can down the road.

The problem with all the "stick" approaches is that nobody really wants to do them. Yes renewables are great and improving, and maybe they continue to make breakthroughs soon enough to the point most countries are willing and able to replace all fossil fuel electricity in the near future. It's crazy to make such a risky gamble though, in my opinion.

I don't think there is no prospect of coal consumption going down. I think the safest and least risky path to shrinking the carbon footprint of electricity generation as fast as possible while supporting growth and additional electrical demand from decarbonizing other industry includes nuclear.

[smaudet]

"I don't think there is no prospect of coal consumption going down."

I mean already only 40% of millenials (according to a recent report) have the prospect to own homes, let alone financial security, or having kids.

None of the devices use power if the people cannot afford to do so, and usage doesn't nominally raise unless either tech demands or population increase. By what proportion depends on into which economy you are born, but this is tangential to the point - supply will not grow without demand.

Nuclear is not safe for people, period, non stop. Solar, wind renewables are not solutions either. Fossil fuels are just status quo, and only increase the general state of fucked up ness. Electric-only vehicles are a non starter, not only because they are so late as to be primarily luxury items for the priviledged elite, but because they produce worse issues than gasoline did, namely a rise in the use of coal, massive battery waste, and massive overuse of unsustainable "sustainables".

People who are serious about using fewer resources are proponents of geothermal, or space based tech (such as e.g. a nuclear plant next to the sun), interested in plastic conservation and alternative manufacturing, and interested in modularity, reusability, over what power source they happen to be using at the time of driving.

[shadowfaxRodeo]

You could make the exact same argument about nuclear energy. The same promises were made, and it has failed to deliver.

It doesn't address the main issue of nuclear — it's incredibly dangerous. For nuclear to be safe you need human security, human experts, funding, you need to not have tsunamis, earthquakes, pandemics, wars, terrorism, economic collapse.

That's not a promise nuclear can make — especially given that we've almost certaintly have passed tipping points that will make unrest and extreme weather likely.

At this point it's not about stopping the climate crisis, it's about limiting the damage, and preparing society for the inevitable consequences.

[throwawaylinux]

> You could make the exact same argument about nuclear energy. The same promises were made, and it has failed to deliver.

No, you couldn't. That is not my argument! My argument is that nuclear is a proven technology to be able to replace carbon based electricity generation on nation-wide scale. France. It's electricity is cheaper and lower carbon than comparable countries in Europe. By 2050 France's electricity generation is actually forecast to increase in carbon intensity by almost 20% due to shutting down of nuclear reactors!

Why do you think the "environmentalist" / fossil fuel proponents have been repeating for the past few decades "oh well nuclear would have been great 10 years ago, but now it doesn't make sense"? It's because nuclear is proven, they know it, they can't address it (except by baseless fearmongering), and so they're misdirecting to keep fossil fuels on top. Why would France's emissions intensity of generation increase that much by 2050 if renewables were strictly superior to nuclear? Doesn't make any sense does it?

> It doesn't address the main issue of nuclear — it's incredibly dangerous.

That's just denial of reality. The facts aren't on your side I'm afraid. Nuclear is safer even without looking at the effects of carbon emissions.

> At this point it's not about stopping the climate crisis, it's about limiting the damage, and preparing society for the inevitable consequences.

That doesn't seem to add anything to the discussion. I don't know what you're getting at. At this point it is about reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere, as it has been at previous points, and as it will be in future points. Fossil-fuel industry talking points aside, that clearly calls for nuclear electricity generation.

[smaudet]

> That's just denial of reality.

No, it's a denial of reality to point at "facts" cherry picked among reports which are made with exactly one goal in mind, to promote nuclear production.

Its then a red herring argument to presume that a worse option such as coal power is what is argued for...

Nuclear is not safe for people, I don't care how safe it "could be made" by throwing a shit ton of concrete on top of it and hooking fancy sensors up to it. Coal is also not safe for people, I mean we could just build big giant fancy air cleaners to clean it all up right? But you stick someone's head into a smokestack and they will die within an hour.

But I mean maybe you still disagree, I have a nuclear reactor I can throw you in where you can live out the rest of your pitiful half life :)

But back to the point, the "facts" don't support the logistical costs of nuclear. It is the exact same folly as letting coal go because we can "scrub the air", or pretending lithium ion battery waste and pollution is OK because we can throw that in a dump.

Facts are not reality, only a badly skewed vision of it.

[shadowfaxRodeo]

> That doesn't seem to add anything to the discussion. I don't know what you're getting at.

I'm explaining why I'm against building nuclear power plants — it's a very simple point really:

- Do nuclear power plants require stability to be safe?

- Is the world becoming more or less stable?

All the other stuff sounds like a conspiracy theory.

[throwawaylinux]

Your baseless assertion that nuclear power is incredibly dangerous is what sounds like a conspiracy theory. Certainly it's not based in any facts or science.

[staysafeanon]

>Do nuclear power plants require stability to be safe?

Not any more or less than any other form of power generation, no.

> Is the world becoming more or less stable?

Definitely more stable. This is the safest, most crime free/stable the world has ever been.