this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
380 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
68672 readers
3386 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree with the message, but these two points following each other feels a little hypocritical:
“Amazon is supporting new nuclear plants” and “Amazon has a poor climate record”
Nuclear power is the most effective way to get out of climate change. Caring about climate change and being against nuclear power at the same time is a contradictory position to take, and needlessly puritanical.
If we could only rely on renewables, that would be very nice. That is not currently the case. We should strive to have more renewable energy, while keeping in mind nuclear power is here to stay and even be expanded as we eliminate carbon emitting sources of energy.
i disagree. nuclear power is expensive to build (usually exceeding the planned costs), is not resistant to high heat in summer (as shown by french summers), and a proper way of getting rid of nuclear waste is still not developed.
One Big Chart: how does the cost of nuclear power compare to renewables?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2024/may/24/nuclear-power-australia-liberal-coalition-peter-dutton-cost
CSIRO confirms nuclear fantasy would cost twice as much as renewables https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/csiro-confirms-nuclear-fantasy-would-cost-twice-as-much-as-renewables/
Nuclear reactor in France shut down over drought Chooz Nuclear Plant on Belgian border turned off after dry summer evaporates water needed to cool reactors
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/nuclear-reactor-in-france-shut-down-over-drought/1952943
The good thing about science is that it doesn't care if you disagree, it just works the way it does
Building nuclear power plants is not a science problem, though, it’s an engineering problem. Just because we can harness energy by breaking up nuclear bonds does not mean that we can do so economically, given the constraints under which we have to operate power plants.
And OP never disputed the science anyways?
Also like solar wind and water power also involve science? As do coal plants? So like, really WTF are we even talking about with science "functioning"?
Edit: Seems like this is just the potato version of the "science is what's true whether or not you believe it" quote applied to policy...which actually doesn't work.
It doesn't matter whether or not nuclear plants are possible if humans don't build them. The science backing them existing is meaningless.