this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2026
46 points (58.8% liked)

Science Memes

20722 readers
1095 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lemonhead2@lemmy.world 83 points 23 hours ago (5 children)

why is there such a negative sentiment towards nuclear power? was it all oil and gas propaganda? or is there some truth

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 61 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

the man who decided to end german nuclear power production getting a seat in gazprom doesn't inspire confidence in reality-based discussion of this subject

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 9 points 21 hours ago

It was decided after Fukushima under Merkel.

[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 18 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island. Plus uranium is another non-renewable resource.

I'm still pro nuke as getting off fossil fuels is of the utmost urgency, but we will have to learn to live off wind and solar.

[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 13 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Ideally we figure out some sweet Nuclear Fusion.

[–] LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Ah yes, the Fusion Reactors that are coming soon (TM) (promised decades ago).

We need energy now, not at some unknown point in the future. Of course, resaeching this technology may make sense. But it does not help today and also not the next 20 years.

[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 12 points 22 hours ago

Yeah, putting your hopes / goals on a fusion powered future is foolish at this point.

But I def support (lots of) research into it.

[–] hayvan@piefed.world 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Cold fusion has been 10 years away since early 1960s.

[–] LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

It will come right after the year of Desktop Linux (I wish)

[–] hayvan@piefed.world 6 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

Deskto pLinux is here, and it's fine. I wish it was more popular but that doesn't stop me from doing all my development, video editing, music , gaming on Linux.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Having become a carbon neutral economy a couple years ago since we obviously adhere to the Paris agreement this does not seem like a good solution as we already (would have to have) deployed solutions based on current technology.

[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Agree that we can get to carbon neutral / carbon negative with current tech.

I do think making plans based on having it are foolish at best.

But I do think we need to keep working on research of it. If we ever hope to achieve a world with "electricity too cheap to meter", nuclear fusion is the key to it. (That and dyson spheres, but that's kinda not in scope of discussion).

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 2 points 21 hours ago

Electric power too cheap to meter exists and it's called solar power.

Renewables are dirt cheap. Hoping for even more abundance is forgetting that it's already ridiculous.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 11 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

So what has released more uncontrolled waste into the world, all the nukes including those, or the equivalent mega-wattage of all other human power generation? Our entire global community is FUCKED to the tune of hundreds of trillions of dollars from consequences of petro, while meanwhile very few of us are suffering from the effects of nuclear power generation. Nukes don't replace solar and wind, they complement them.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 6 points 21 hours ago

The question was “why is public sentiment so against nuclear?” and they answered, with a note that they personally support it over fossil fuels.

[–] EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 20 hours ago

I'd love to see a full production chain breakdown of disasters and their costs to clean up, for both fossil fuel and nuclear.

Most people's issue is "ooh scary radiation!" without realizing you get more exposure to ionizing radiation by living near a coal fired power plant than a nuclear one. Fuck, you can take a swim in the reactor pool and if you're under the surface away from the nuclear material, the water above you blocks the background radiation you'd be exposed to walking around on the surface.

[–] Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip 7 points 21 hours ago

Honestly I think renewables are at a place where it doesnt really matter much anymore. My perception has been that its propaganda, but I'm not really knowledgeable on the subject