• Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Safe, sure. Efficient? Not even close.

    It’s far, far more expensive than renewable energy. It also takes far, far longer to build a plant. Too long to meet 2030 targets even if you started building today. And in most western democracies you wouldn’t even be able to get anything done by 2040 if you also add in political processes, consultation, and design of the plant.

    There’s a reason the current biggest proponents of nuclear energy are people and parties who previously were open climate change deniers. Deciding to go to nuclear will give fossil fuel companies maximum time to keep doing their thing. Companies which made their existence on the back of fossil fuels, like mining companies and plant operators also love it, because it doesn’t require much of a change from their current business model.

    • Frokke@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Huh. So those of us that have always advocated for a nuclear baseline with wind/solar topping off until we have adequate storage solutions are climate change deniers? That’s new.

    • manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Australian politicians have been arguing about nuclear energy for decades, and with whats going on now, petty distracting squabbling while state governments are gutting public infrastructure

      The most frustrating thing is the antinuclear party is obviously fine with nuclear power, and nuclear armaments, just look at the aukus submarines

      labors cries about the dangers to our communities and the environment are obviously disingenuous, or they wouldnt be setting a green light for the billionaire robber barons to continue tearing oil and minerals out of the ground (they promise to restore the land for real-sies this time)

      Anyway, a nuclear power plant runs a steam turbine and will never be more than what, 30% efficient?

    • lemmyseizethemeans@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Blah blah blah nobody wants to hear actual evidence and suggestions that solar and wind might be better. We’re on a mission for Nuclear power damn the Fukushima refugees and who cares if we store the waste encased in concrete at the bottom of the ocean which we know will eventually leak into the food stream

      Noo kyaa larr is the fyuuu charrr

  • TurboHarbinger@feddit.cl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    ITT: ignorant people with 20+ years old knowledge.

    Nuclear energy has been safe for a long time. Radioactive waste disposal is better than ever now.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Also you can separate fuel waste from useful part. So even less waste.

    • WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Because we can dump the waste down deeper mine shafts, making it easier for us to pretend it doesn’t exist?

  • words_number@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s unsafe, not renewable, not independent from natural resources (which might not be present in your country, so you need to buy from dictators) and last but not least crazy expensive.

    • Grumpy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Need to buy from dictators?

      I didn’t realize Australia and Canada who has highest uranium reserves are dictators. Canada also used to be highest uranium producer until relatively recently.

      There is no need. Though Kazakhstan and Russia may be cheapest if you’re near there.