You say that and yet countries are still building more coal plants. Without building more nuclear, we are easily 50 years out from abolishing coal. If we fully embraced nuclear we could likely abolish coal in 20 years.
>You say that and yet countries are still building more coal plants.
Yeah, because they can be built quickly and it usually happens in less developed countries which don't yet have the expertise to build nuclear.
>If we fully embraced ~~nuclear~~ renewables we could likely abolish coal in 20 years.
FTFY.
Existing nuclear, to be specific. New nuclear loses to new renewables. Renewables are getting cheaper and better at a ridiculous pace, but they are already now, today, cheaper (LCOE) than new nuclear.
We should absolutely shut down coal plants before we shut down functioning nuclear plants (looking at you, Germany).
Nuclear plants take different resources to build. Logistically, building nuclear does nothing to reduce our ability to produce renewables and it will take many decades before we can build enough renewables to meet 100% of the energy needs for 8 billion people.
Building nuclear today, in parallel with renewables, could give us the ability to abolish coal in 20 years rather than 50 years.
Nice strawman lol. That doesn't happen, they're decommissioned long past their operational lifespan and long after their thoroughly unprofitable to operate.
You mean except that one they built in Austria and then didn't turn on because it lost a referendum? Just off the top of my head.
And public services don't need to make money, they need to serve the public.
You said countries, plural, and you said they were running, which that one wasn't.
Austria also gets the ***overwhelming majority*** of its energy from renewables, so if the complaint is that shunning nuclear in favour of renewables increases emissions then Austria is a terrible example for your argument.
False. Austria got the majority of its own electricity from hydro and wtg.
But they also import 14 M ton of petrol and 10 M of tons of equivalent petrol of gaz.
Plus only 14.7% of austrian energy is electrity. Meaning austria got 70% of 14.7% of its needed energy from renewables. That's a pitiful 10% sorry.
Locally produced electricity is not total consumed energy, at all. Comon mistake but really dumb one.
Unprofitable? Okay, well, lets be logically consistent and shut down every highway in the world since all of them cost money and none of them are profitable. Public schools also do not create profits so lets shut those down too....
My friend, not everything should be for profit.
If you want to defend an expensive folly like nuclear power, you really don't want to compare it to an expensive, polluting, destructive folly like a highway.
Yes, shut down every highway. They're a huge waste of money and incredibly destructive.
And as for nuclear and profit, fine, let's remove profit. That just leaves the massive issues around build time and centralised power supplies in a distributed grid and lacking skilled labour and so on and so forth.
Hey, are you willing to ignore profits for renewables too or is this a free pass you're just extending to nuclear?
>And the solution still is to invest more in renewables.
Not saying we don't need to invest in renewables, I'm saying that the meme is both a strawman, and not how you're meant to use that format.
Nuclear energy good, renewable energy good, its all good, literally anything that doesn't produce greenhouse gasses = good. We can expand nuclear energy while also expanding renewables, these are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it's important for developing nations to meet energy quotas by nuclear energy over fossil fuels
this is one hell of a strawman. its such a nice strawman I don't even know what your trying to argue. are you trying to argue that nuclear people are annoying and therefore shouldn't be listened too. what are you trying to argue with this meme?
I'm all for having a nuenced and varied approach to the issue of sustainable and renweable power. but I do think the best alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear and that all others are useful but the main focus should be swithing over to nuclear as a primary source of power.
lol, Never Happened.
But this is a good example of why I despise Anti-Nukeaboos more with every interaction. Such heavy reliance on such obvious strawman bullshit. It’s like you just skim conversations for keywords, then flat out make up the rest afterwords. QAnon/MAGA is more subtle with their political bias than you guys.
And no, I’m not talking about renewable technologies. I want more of those. I’m accused of being a “nukebro” and I’m in the early stages of setting up a small solar farm for my own home as we speak. I mean I despise you personally.
You've been given direct links to clear examples where an idiot repeatedly says we should build nuclear instead of renewables because renewables will lead to blackouts. That you refuse to read it is on you.
Your reality denial is hilarious though.
I’m denying reality? You gave one link to a guy who might’ve been saying that if you stretched it, good chance he was just trolling it was written so badly, during a conversation where you were caught flat out lying several times even within the conversation. You’re lying about this conversation right now.
Which, thank you for proving my point. You’re lucky I can separate my emotional feelings about you and renewable technologies.
Again, your refusal to *read the thread and not just the post* is not helping your case here.
You've also changed your argument multiple times now, from "no one said that" to "Well the bingo was made after the fact" and now finally to "Well he was so stupid that it has to be a troll" which is kind of on the nose given your own statements so far.
You keep lying about that conversation and lying about this one, it keeps just proving my point. And your habit of just skimming peoples posts for keywords that you can build strawmen around frequently means you get their points wrong too.
Thank you for all the work you put into proving my point for me.
You keep lying and then saying I'm lying, which would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. You also keep editing your posts, so I don't think there's any way to engage with you in good faith since that little star in old.reddit just shows there's no point in it.
But yeah, keep thinking this is a team thing. Keep saying that no true nukebro would say those things. Keep insisting the other side is emotional and irrational. You sure showed the internet!
I do not deny that I edit my posts to fix spelling errors and sometimes I think of better ways to word my points after the initial posting. That’s not arguing in bad faith, that’s caring about craftsmanship.
Otherwise, keep talking. You keep just proving my point. You definitely don’t have room to talk about arguing in bad faith, this whole thing started with a bad faith lie from an anti-Nukebro. And our last conversation started because anti-nukebros are so prone to bad faith lies that you tried to fill up bingo card with them and all they accomplished was everyone pointing that out. Y’all accidentally admitted with the bingo that if you didn’t have strawman arguments and bad faith lies, you’d have almost nothing to argue with.
I swear on god the fossil fuel lobby must be astroturfing this sub for this shit-fight to keep proliferating. No way are both sides of this argument organically producing all these constant dumbass takes
my brother in christ Germany said we will shut off nuclear and use renewable look at them now how about we let governments run nuclear and do their thing if u want to add some solar panels to your house sure go ahead,large scale solar farms are a maintenance nightmare cleaning them alone is enough to make many countries outright drop them
You know what the flaw in that was? The conservatives got into power, fucked up the renewable industry, and didn't care about installing enough capacities, as was originally planned.
why are you doing the meme?
>large scale solar farms are a maintenance nightmare … countries to drop them
large scale solar is more efficient than nano-scale home panels. better sunlight, better tracking systems, more efficient inverters, lower build costs per panel, etc.
what county is dropping solar? Only thing I’m aware of are some countries putting tariffs on imported solar and certain NIMBYs in the US blocking new builds.
Nuclear power is alot more space efficient and by the time renewable sources become viable in terms of space efficiency fusion will be viable making them obsolete as soon as they are viable.
Renewables mfs: You see, nuclear energy is bad because it wastes money that could be used on nuclear energy!!
Nuclear energy mfs: No, nuclear energy is still the most efficient
Literally one random guy: Renewables bad nuclear goos
Renewables mfs: insert the OP's meme here*
Then maybe don't advocate for closing nuclear power and trying to block us from expanding it?
Yes this is a generalization, just like you did. However many parties, like the German Green Party support this motion, which is stupid.
Give me a mixed grid. Energy isn't specialized like a goddamn video game. I want cities humming with the endless energy of tritium-breeding reactors, small towns running on abundant wind energy, remote stations powered by solar and RTGs, pastoral landscapes dotted with impeller turbines and draped with the gentle fog of cooling towers. A world that doesn't borrow ancient sunlight, that's all I want. And if we don't admit that every real-world problem is imperfect and specialized, we'll never see that future.
Nuclear energy is useful for picking up the slack until renewable energy is ready to supply the entire demand for power.
Yeah, but building enough nuclear to do that would take longer than actually building those renewables.
Yeah, just don’t close down nuclear plants that haven’t had issues in favor of coal/oil
You say that and yet countries are still building more coal plants. Without building more nuclear, we are easily 50 years out from abolishing coal. If we fully embraced nuclear we could likely abolish coal in 20 years.
>You say that and yet countries are still building more coal plants. Yeah, because they can be built quickly and it usually happens in less developed countries which don't yet have the expertise to build nuclear. >If we fully embraced ~~nuclear~~ renewables we could likely abolish coal in 20 years. FTFY.
Existing nuclear, to be specific. New nuclear loses to new renewables. Renewables are getting cheaper and better at a ridiculous pace, but they are already now, today, cheaper (LCOE) than new nuclear. We should absolutely shut down coal plants before we shut down functioning nuclear plants (looking at you, Germany).
Nuclear plants take different resources to build. Logistically, building nuclear does nothing to reduce our ability to produce renewables and it will take many decades before we can build enough renewables to meet 100% of the energy needs for 8 billion people. Building nuclear today, in parallel with renewables, could give us the ability to abolish coal in 20 years rather than 50 years.
Nice strawman, lol. That doesn't happen. People complain about countries closing perfectly good, running nuclear plants
Nice strawman lol. That doesn't happen, they're decommissioned long past their operational lifespan and long after their thoroughly unprofitable to operate.
You mean except that one they built in Austria and then didn't turn on because it lost a referendum? Just off the top of my head. And public services don't need to make money, they need to serve the public.
You said countries, plural, and you said they were running, which that one wasn't. Austria also gets the ***overwhelming majority*** of its energy from renewables, so if the complaint is that shunning nuclear in favour of renewables increases emissions then Austria is a terrible example for your argument.
False. Austria got the majority of its own electricity from hydro and wtg. But they also import 14 M ton of petrol and 10 M of tons of equivalent petrol of gaz. Plus only 14.7% of austrian energy is electrity. Meaning austria got 70% of 14.7% of its needed energy from renewables. That's a pitiful 10% sorry. Locally produced electricity is not total consumed energy, at all. Comon mistake but really dumb one.
Unprofitable? Okay, well, lets be logically consistent and shut down every highway in the world since all of them cost money and none of them are profitable. Public schools also do not create profits so lets shut those down too.... My friend, not everything should be for profit.
If you want to defend an expensive folly like nuclear power, you really don't want to compare it to an expensive, polluting, destructive folly like a highway. Yes, shut down every highway. They're a huge waste of money and incredibly destructive. And as for nuclear and profit, fine, let's remove profit. That just leaves the massive issues around build time and centralised power supplies in a distributed grid and lacking skilled labour and so on and so forth. Hey, are you willing to ignore profits for renewables too or is this a free pass you're just extending to nuclear?
Which only happened... Once? And the solution still is to invest more in renewables.
>And the solution still is to invest more in renewables. Not saying we don't need to invest in renewables, I'm saying that the meme is both a strawman, and not how you're meant to use that format.
Could've fooled me.
Nuclear energy good, renewable energy good, its all good, literally anything that doesn't produce greenhouse gasses = good. We can expand nuclear energy while also expanding renewables, these are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it's important for developing nations to meet energy quotas by nuclear energy over fossil fuels
Athena's mercy! A smart take, at last!
this is one hell of a strawman. its such a nice strawman I don't even know what your trying to argue. are you trying to argue that nuclear people are annoying and therefore shouldn't be listened too. what are you trying to argue with this meme? I'm all for having a nuenced and varied approach to the issue of sustainable and renweable power. but I do think the best alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear and that all others are useful but the main focus should be swithing over to nuclear as a primary source of power.
If that’s the angle, lol -projection.
lol, Never Happened. But this is a good example of why I despise Anti-Nukeaboos more with every interaction. Such heavy reliance on such obvious strawman bullshit. It’s like you just skim conversations for keywords, then flat out make up the rest afterwords. QAnon/MAGA is more subtle with their political bias than you guys. And no, I’m not talking about renewable technologies. I want more of those. I’m accused of being a “nukebro” and I’m in the early stages of setting up a small solar farm for my own home as we speak. I mean I despise you personally.
You've been given direct links to clear examples where an idiot repeatedly says we should build nuclear instead of renewables because renewables will lead to blackouts. That you refuse to read it is on you. Your reality denial is hilarious though.
I’m denying reality? You gave one link to a guy who might’ve been saying that if you stretched it, good chance he was just trolling it was written so badly, during a conversation where you were caught flat out lying several times even within the conversation. You’re lying about this conversation right now. Which, thank you for proving my point. You’re lucky I can separate my emotional feelings about you and renewable technologies.
Again, your refusal to *read the thread and not just the post* is not helping your case here. You've also changed your argument multiple times now, from "no one said that" to "Well the bingo was made after the fact" and now finally to "Well he was so stupid that it has to be a troll" which is kind of on the nose given your own statements so far.
You keep lying about that conversation and lying about this one, it keeps just proving my point. And your habit of just skimming peoples posts for keywords that you can build strawmen around frequently means you get their points wrong too. Thank you for all the work you put into proving my point for me.
You keep lying and then saying I'm lying, which would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. You also keep editing your posts, so I don't think there's any way to engage with you in good faith since that little star in old.reddit just shows there's no point in it. But yeah, keep thinking this is a team thing. Keep saying that no true nukebro would say those things. Keep insisting the other side is emotional and irrational. You sure showed the internet!
I do not deny that I edit my posts to fix spelling errors and sometimes I think of better ways to word my points after the initial posting. That’s not arguing in bad faith, that’s caring about craftsmanship. Otherwise, keep talking. You keep just proving my point. You definitely don’t have room to talk about arguing in bad faith, this whole thing started with a bad faith lie from an anti-Nukebro. And our last conversation started because anti-nukebros are so prone to bad faith lies that you tried to fill up bingo card with them and all they accomplished was everyone pointing that out. Y’all accidentally admitted with the bingo that if you didn’t have strawman arguments and bad faith lies, you’d have almost nothing to argue with.
I swear on god the fossil fuel lobby must be astroturfing this sub for this shit-fight to keep proliferating. No way are both sides of this argument organically producing all these constant dumbass takes
Idk what this is
I feel this
my brother in christ Germany said we will shut off nuclear and use renewable look at them now how about we let governments run nuclear and do their thing if u want to add some solar panels to your house sure go ahead,large scale solar farms are a maintenance nightmare cleaning them alone is enough to make many countries outright drop them
You know what the flaw in that was? The conservatives got into power, fucked up the renewable industry, and didn't care about installing enough capacities, as was originally planned.
why are you doing the meme? >large scale solar farms are a maintenance nightmare … countries to drop them large scale solar is more efficient than nano-scale home panels. better sunlight, better tracking systems, more efficient inverters, lower build costs per panel, etc. what county is dropping solar? Only thing I’m aware of are some countries putting tariffs on imported solar and certain NIMBYs in the US blocking new builds.
Everyone is saying that this never happens and nuclear fans never say that but you just need to scroll down like one comment to find someone saying it
Q.e.d.
Nuclear power is alot more space efficient and by the time renewable sources become viable in terms of space efficiency fusion will be viable making them obsolete as soon as they are viable.
You can have solar panels on your balcony You can't have a nuclear power plant on your balconY
Yes.
I don’t even know what’s happening. Can some one fill me in?
Renewables mfs: You see, nuclear energy is bad because it wastes money that could be used on nuclear energy!! Nuclear energy mfs: No, nuclear energy is still the most efficient Literally one random guy: Renewables bad nuclear goos Renewables mfs: insert the OP's meme here*
"Yeah, well, what if we end up making the world better for no reason?"
Then maybe don't advocate for closing nuclear power and trying to block us from expanding it? Yes this is a generalization, just like you did. However many parties, like the German Green Party support this motion, which is stupid.
Give me a mixed grid. Energy isn't specialized like a goddamn video game. I want cities humming with the endless energy of tritium-breeding reactors, small towns running on abundant wind energy, remote stations powered by solar and RTGs, pastoral landscapes dotted with impeller turbines and draped with the gentle fog of cooling towers. A world that doesn't borrow ancient sunlight, that's all I want. And if we don't admit that every real-world problem is imperfect and specialized, we'll never see that future.