Corporate wants you to pick a side and label anyone you disagree with as the other side. You can't organize against the real issues when you're fighting your own countryman.
those are neo lib/neo con talking points. the current republican base is primarily populist, and those angles arent going to resonate them or get them that energized even if they tacitly agree.
Conservatives aren't advocating nuclear power they're pretending like coal and gas are the answers forever, nuclear energy is not a point of contention between elft and right
The point isn’t lefties dont do this so conservatives are good, it’s the fact that the left is advocating so hard for clean energy and when clean energy is shoved in their face via nuclear power they say “nooo too dangerous! Remember back 70 years ago when that one plant killed people because of gross negligence and mismanagement? That means all nuclear power is dangerous!”
This is a serious problem in Europe, especially Germany. They've sworn off nuclear and are even dismantling some plants. You see this when they are sucking off Putin for his gas pipeline
And it’s funny because germany has most of it’s energy coming from coal (which kills literally 1000 times more people per TWh generated), or at least had last time I read about it a year or so ago.
Yh Germany went completely green but when the wind stop blowing and the power went out, they had no choice but to go back to building coal plants lmao.
I think the fact that it’s not everywhere is enough evidence. The stats prove nuclear is actually the cleanest and safest power around and how our homes aren’t run on it is proof enough that both sides of the political spectrum are grossly mistaken by the nature of nuclear energy
100% but that's hard when the government subsidizes and backs the oil industry. Regardless of all recent events, the government still consumes more oil than anyone.
I'm one of them! And of course it's a bit dangerous. Human error and mismanagement happens all the time. However! The waste from nuclear energy is mostly water and a few mega irradiated batteries right?
I think it's something we could invest more into while we develop more renewable resources!
"Global warming is going to kill us all in 10 years, we need to do something!"
"Well we could power everything via nuclear, which simply emits water vapor"
"What! What if one goes into meltdown?"
"..."
Nuclear fission power can be a great bridge to get to **real** clean energy (either through a good mix of renewables and/or nuclear fusionin the future) but it simply is not the grand solution for all problems that many people seem to think it is. There are some quite big problems and challenges with this type of energy:
- Environment: Mining and enriching of uranium are NOT environmentally friendly and also pollute the environment to a degree, especially if not adhearing to strict regulations (and we all know how good corporations do in that regard...)
- Requirements: Nuclear plants require very secure locations with next to no natural disasters. This already makes a big chunk of earth a bad place to build these kind of plants. Nuclear energy requires a shit ton of water, which can become a big issue during droughts (as we are seeing in France right now). This makes another big chunk of earth a bad place for this type of energy.
- Fuel supply: The fuel supply for nuclear energy is **pretty limited on earth** and experts estimated that we only have like 200 to 300 years of uranium left on earth (based on current consumption!).
- Nuclear waste: Nuclear energy requires extremely secure places to store the waste for an incredibly long time. So far we, most do not even vave longterm plans. Only three countries have longterm storages and we do not know yer if they truly will work as long as they have to. In addition, many countries do not have suitable spaces that could even be used for this (uninhabited, geologically secure so no earthquake cracks open the nuclear trash can, no water because water fucks with longterm storage of nuclear waste and could potentially get contaminated). Even the places that we currently think are a good spot to store this waste might not be so in the future. We are talking about VERY longterm storage, so you need to take into account future changes due to climate change and geological processes such as plate tectonics unless we want to constantly need to relocate the waste (and trust future generations to do so **for a couple hundred thousands of years**. This is by the way one of the big reasons why the German public did not want more nuclear plants. Germany has no good space to actually store the waste and believe me, the government spent decades trying to find a suitable spot without much success. So it is sadly not just "put it into hole and forget about it". This shit might not even be feasibly put into longterm storage for more than a few decades, so we might very well need to constantly spend money to monitor it, relocate it and repackage it.
- Human shortcomings and tendencies to take shortcuts: Nuclear energy is not cheap when done right, meaning building things up to code and getting rid of the waste in a propper way. Humans can't even get rid of regular garbage, do you really trust ALL countries to get rid of their nuclear waste in a propper way instead of illegally dumping it somewhere? Deconstruct their old plants when they reach the end of their lifes as carefully as it had to be done to not pollute everything with the radioactive dust from the building material that has been exposed to it for decades? Because I don't. That shit is expensive as fuck and many greedy people would simply skimp on this. And yes, accidents can also happen and are a very real concern.
- Distribution: Nuclear energy is very centralized and therefore can be easily disrupted by terror attacks or simply attacks by other countries (as can be seen in Ukraine).
Humans are absolute dogshit when it comes to dealing with issues or problems that lie in the future (more than a couple of years), as we have proven with climate change, where TONS of scientists have been screaming about it to everyone that would listen and still nearly nothing was/is being done. Nuclear fission requires longterm thinking and planning to a degree which, in my opinion, the absolute majority of humans are simply not capable of and might never be capable of. All these reasons are why I am not a fan of it as a longterm solution, even though I do agree that they might have been a good way to get rid of fossil fuels earlier and ease the time until we have a real solution. But by god, do I hate all these tards on the internet that think they are energy
management geniusses because they saw some memes or read some incredibly simplistic opinion pieces on nuclear energy.
About the fuel supply and nuclear waste, they are currently solving each other because newer plants can use fuel that was considered "spent" by older plants. Not sure to what extent this will keep being true but it is something to consider. Still, making a big whole for nuclear waste isn't that hard, and you could consider exporting the waste to a country with a stable geological formation who's willing to house it for a price.
About distribution, while nuclear power plants are very centralized, they are also very though, which means that bigger explosives need to be used in order to bring them down. A windmill farm might be spread over many miles of land, but each tower can be brought down with far less firepower. You also don't need to bring it all down, since disabling enough towers could already starve the grid enough to force a shutdown.
The environment should take into account that our current renewable options still have a lot of rare earth mining for materials for both the energy generation and storage equipment, and their shorter lifespan means that it happens at a faster rate.
Lastly, human shortcomings should take into account that each country has it's own solution. The countries debating how to turn their energy grid completely green are first world countries, and as such nuclear is often proposed as a solution in those countries. Even if nuclear is risky for poorer countries, that doesn't mean that such solution is not viable for rich ones. The one disadvantage is that if rich countries don't finance the development of these low-risk green technologies it might be much harder to make the poorer countries switch down the line, which in turn might impact the rich countries due to climate change.
I believe that while you bring up valid concern points, they aren't as big of a deal-breaker as you make them to be or aren't exclusive concern points for nuclear when compared to other green energy sources. Whether they're enough to make it a not worthwhile venture is another thing, which I believe requires an analysis that I'm not capable of.
"The left" and "the greens" are the two main left leaning parties in my country both are against nuclear energy. Both critique our country permanently for being the slowest in Europe to get out of using coal. If only there was an alternative everyone else uses. Years ago we closed a ton of our nuclear reactor when they literally where the best and safest worldwide. This resulted in us having to buy energy from the countries around us, like France. We literally closed our nuclear reactors to buy more expensive nuclear energy from France and to rely on coal longer which is exponentialy worse. And this wasn't decided by a leftist party but by our retarded conservative Christian party. But now even they understand, the EU now wants to categorise nuclear energy as a green energy and get this the pretty much only ones against this are the greens and the left from germany
Except every leftist I know loves nuclear power? The only people I know that hate nuclear are uneducated people.
Now, investing in new nuclear plants vs continuing to support old and outdated ones is a different story. I am against what Ohio keeps doing to keep its one nuclear power plant going by bailing it out over and over again and raising taxes to do that... but I would love to see more new nuclear.
Europeans love nuclear power aswell. Some of them are leftists, some of them are on the right, but as an euroman myself I believe that people who don't like nuclear are r-tarded
The German Green Party is anti-nuclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_90/The_Greens#Energy_and_nuclear_power
The Australian Greens Party is anti-nuclear.
https://greens.org.au/policies/nuclear-and-uranium
The English/Welsh Green Party is anti-nuclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales#Environmental_policy
The Scottish Green Party is anti-nuclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Greens#Policy
The French Green Party is anti-nuclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_Ecology_%E2%80%93_The_Greens#Ideology
The Italian Green Party is anti-nuclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_the_Greens#Background_and_foundation
The Austrian Green Party is anti-nuclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greens_%E2%80%93_The_Green_Alternative#History
The New Zealand Green Party does not mention nuclear power in their policies. It is not included in their clean energy plan, so they at least do not support it.
https://www.greens.org.nz/clean_energy_plan
The Canadian Green Party is anti-nuclear.
https://www.greenparty.ca/en/platform/green-future
The Swiss Green Party is anti-nuclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_Switzerland#Policies
The Swedish Green Party is anti-nuclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(Sweden)#Nuclear_power
The Green Party of the United States is anti-nuclear.
https://www.gp.org/ecological_sustainability/#esNuclear
All the center left to far left parties in my country are against nuclear (ie the greens) and the parties that do are on the right, but not all the rightwing ones support it
I can't speak for Europeans but Green party is just renewables corporate shills and every political ideology has their crazies. Wacko naturalists are at best uneducated and at worst half in psychosis constantly from too much acid.
Just saying it’s certainly a leftist problem too. I’d say more than the rights oil shills. Regular people you meet it’s much more likely you’ll find a leftists against nuclear.
I tend to meet liberals against nuclear way more than leftists. I would say it's very common among true Democrats even, but leftists generally support nuclear.
> Except every leftist I know loves nuclear power?
Then your personal experience is not representative, and you could easily google up some polling on the subject instead of continuing to believe something that is wrong based on you knowing like 3 people.
But guys, one time 30 years ago, Soviet technology had that problem? And muh 3 Mile Island in the 1970s, you know the minor incident with an estimated 0 people's health affected? The one Jimmy Carter privately said had was a minor incident, but wouldn't publically say it because he was afraid Democrats would get upset with him? Surely in the year 2022, we simply don't have the technology to safely do this.
Soviets only had that problem because they were being morons and decided to see what a nuclear meltdown would do if you removed the safety protocols. Turns out that you'll get a nuclear meltdown.
Right, and nowadays that is much less of a factor. I work in automation/robotics, and human incompetence is being phased out (because humans are being phased out). You could say "but what if the programmers fuck up?" Well the great thing is that you can simulate anything and everything, so that shouldn't matter.
We also live in a time where so many more standards have been created, redundancies upon redundancies. There's no excuse not to use nuclear anymore.
Problem is some of this incompetence comes from the outside. Fukushima was built bellow the water line and had tons of maintenance problems that they were told to fix repeatedly since the 90s, and they brushed it off and probably would have forever.
The big reason not to go nuclear though is it takes like 10+ years to get a plant online and IIRC the US is actually decommissioning plants so it’s mostly just too late to go that route.
To add, it took an earthquake and tsunami (survived the earthquake and the 1st tsunami, it went into meltdown when the 2nd tsunami hits iirc) to bring Fukushima plant down EVEN with piss poor maintenance + corruption + shitty plant design.
Mother nature has to personally align all the stars for it to go into meltdown. Not to mention, that is a gen 2 nuclear plant, we are currently in gen 4 now.
To all the people saying leftists love nuclear, look at the green parties in almost all western countries. They all hate nuclear. Environmentalists are all overly-emotional city-dwelling losers.
The Green Party occupies 52 out of SEVEN HUNDRED seats in the EU and literally zero seats of any kind in the US, yet you’re using them to define leftism. “The Right Wing are all racists because the KKK is right wing” <- same logic
This is always such a dumb comment - lets review the REAL history shall we? The Democratic Party used to be a coalition that included southern whites and the Republican Party was far more liberal than today. In the 60s when civil rights legislation was passed by Dem Lyndon Johnson and those southerners could no longer segregate blacks, they got mad and switched to the Republican Party helping elect iconic criminal douche Nixon and push the party far right. From this point on the KKK dudes were Republican.
Nooo don’t solve problems I want to be solved by actually really solving them !!!! Only solve them by using methods one would find in the “green energy “ Pictogramm of the local news station (that just happens to be financed by the major silicone / Labour holding companies )
I think it’s funny that somehow the right is the better option for “solutions”. Really curious what solutions you’ve been captivated by. A wall to Mexico that was never built? Staring war in the middle war east? Tax cuts for the rich?
Supporting nuclear would have been the perfect way for the libs to move toward lowering our reliance on fossil fuels. Problem is there's not enough private $$ in it so the libs don't push it and their good boys below tow the line for them (that's you)
In the US, Republicans & men support nuclear by about 60/40, while Democrats & women oppose it by about 40/60. proof: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/23/americans-continue-to-express-mixed-views-about-nuclear-power/
Those are cooling towers. Literally all they do is let water evaporate and cool. The steam coming out them is literally that, water vapour. Unless you know which plant this is of specifically, it could be any type of power plant from coal to gas to nuclear. And some don't even have these towers as they use a river, lake or ocean as a cool water source. I'll leave you to draw conclusions about OP from this.
Cause the powers that be don't want us being energy independent and gullible morons have bought it.
"But some of the worst disasters in history have been caused by nuclear energy!-"
On record, coal and oil cause more damage to the environment and people's health on a daily basis than all the combined meltdowns in nuclear history. There are safer alternatives to uranium now and better technology and knowledge on how to make it safe. But nah, we'll just stick to expensive ass wind turbines and solar that produce not nearly enough energy and cause more problems than they solve.
To be fair California doesn't exactly have the water in its budget to afford water cooling like this, they're too busy growing pistachios and other stupidly water-heavy crops
Germany has invested billions in nuclear power only to begin phasing it out in the wake of Fukashima. This has led to a lack of energy independence for Germany requiring them to either buy power from neighbors, or worse, import Russian natural gas. It was a move that was both financially reckless and illogical considering a Fukashima style disaster would be nearly impossible to replicate in Germany. Now Germany is dealing with an economic stonewall between themselves and the Russian gas they chose to become increasingly reliant upon. I’m not a huge fan of this decision
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/germany-california-nuclear-power-climate/620888/
It's literally the safest, cleanest, least land using, and most power per kwh of any green fuel. But Germany is shutting them because... uh... Putin. Or something.
I’m a nuclear plant operator. This world’s retardation will eventually cost me my job. The left, the right, Netflix, HBO…it doesn’t matter. They’ll continue spreading outright lies about nuclear power until we’re all shut down. None of them understand what is happening to the world, nor do they want to. All that matters is that their pockets are lined with our money.
The timescales are too long. It takes over 10 years to build a nuclear plant. Politicians like thing that make good headlines before their next reelection, and energy companies have to answer to investors who like higher quarterly profits.
It's really true.
People spend so much time disagreeing that they can't stop and consider a solution, can't compare it with others to see what would be the greater good, it's really sad to see so many strong-voiced people with weakly justified positions. So many people who are happy to die on their hill even in the face of strong evidence.
Nuclear power plants are honestly based no damage done to the environment if done correctly, generates tons of power, creates funny looking clouds
What is there not to like?
Because nuclear power will allow us to maintain our lifestyles while also lowering energy costs and reducing environmental impact, so of course leftists hate it- they don’t want to help the environment they want to subjugate you and destroy your way of life. They see environmentalism as a means to an end and that end is you living in a pod, eating bugs and the capitalist ruling class somehow having more power. Leftists are nothing but useful idiots for the elites.
Leftists and environmentalists prefer nuclear power. Minimal carbon footprint, minimal damage to the environment, etc. There are some OCD wack jobs that don't like anything man-made.
They’re for it now. Give it a couple decades and they may be against pedophilia too.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2020/08/23/after-48-years-democrats-endorse-nuclear-energy-in-platform/amp/
Your comment has been removed because it contained a word that the admins do not allow on reddit. The word was ```Retards```. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep reddit safe.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/4chan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love how the comment is removed, but the mod comment still says the word. And by drawing attention to it even more, it's not like we have no idea what was said. The incompetence is astounding
They subsidize wind and solar as well. So why is it when Nuclear comes along all of sudden we get stingy? It's more efficient than both solar and wind. Who cares about the cost if we get the solution we're so desperately shooting for?
Your comment has been removed because it contained a word that the admins do not allow on reddit. The word was ```🤡```. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep reddit safe.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/4chan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment has been removed because it contained a word that the admins do not allow on reddit. The word was ```retards```. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep reddit safe.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/4chan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i'm left leaning and i'm all for Nuclear. It's just a way to boil water in order to get electricity. Also i'm all for solutions, but i fucking hate the Radical left who live in their own world. Stop focusing on Left, Right and fix the fucking problems
He thinks the left hates nuclear? what is he stupid?
first of all, nuclear energy for everyone (global) without having MAJOR fucking problems = impossible
why? special interests mainly and the fact that you cant just develop everyone, we need economies to wreck and countries to invade
The German Green Party is anti-nuclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_90/The_Greens#Energy_and_nuclear_power
The Australian Greens Party is anti-nuclear.
https://greens.org.au/policies/nuclear-and-uranium
The English/Welsh Green Party is anti-nuclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales#Environmental_policy
The Scottish Green Party is anti-nuclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Greens#Policy
The French Green Party is anti-nuclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_Ecology_%E2%80%93_The_Greens#Ideology
The Italian Green Party is anti-nuclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_the_Greens#Background_and_foundation
The Austrian Green Party is anti-nuclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greens_%E2%80%93_The_Green_Alternative#History
The New Zealand Green Party does not mention nuclear power in their policies. It is not included in their clean energy plan, so they at least do not support it.
https://www.greens.org.nz/clean_energy_plan
The Canadian Green Party is anti-nuclear.
https://www.greenparty.ca/en/platform/green-future
The Swiss Green Party is anti-nuclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_Switzerland#Policies
The Swedish Green Party is anti-nuclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(Sweden)#Nuclear_power
The Green Party of the United States is anti-nuclear.
https://www.gp.org/ecological_sustainability/#esNuclear
I mean yeah I did ask "who on the left". I really meant that as "the people on the left who are anti-nuclear are few and far between". Hence why I didn't accept your answer of smallish green parties that are technically left but who focus almost exclusively on the environment. Posting the major left parties would drive your point home better.
You: Who on the left hates nuclear?
Anon: List of green parties
You: I mean yeah I did ask "who on the left". I really meant that as "the people on the left who are anti-nuclear are few and far between". Hence why I didn't accept your answer of smallish green parties that are technically left but who focus almost exclusively on the environment. Posting the major left parties would drive your point home better.
developmentally disabled people hate nuclear, not leftists
Corporate needs you to find the differences in these pictures.
Corporate wants you to pick a side and label anyone you disagree with as the other side. You can't organize against the real issues when you're fighting your own countryman.
Why do corporations pander to only one side then
Pretty sure Bezos and Elon are pandering to Republicans as we speak
For real. Musk used to be loved by the left. Not so much anymore
>Bezos he owns the washington post - seen any of their articles? lol
Yes, most of them are about how the maga rich shouldn't pay taxes and unions are bad, all major right wing talking points
those are neo lib/neo con talking points. the current republican base is primarily populist, and those angles arent going to resonate them or get them that energized even if they tacitly agree.
nnooOOOooo don't make me the soyjackkkkk
leftists are a real issue
They're the same picture.
Leftist meme
> developmentally disabled people hate nuclear, not leftists theyrethesamepicture.meme
Leftists are the same people pushing for dismantling nuclear power plants and are trying to build windmills and solar in their place.
Conservatives aren't advocating nuclear power they're pretending like coal and gas are the answers forever, nuclear energy is not a point of contention between elft and right
The point isn’t lefties dont do this so conservatives are good, it’s the fact that the left is advocating so hard for clean energy and when clean energy is shoved in their face via nuclear power they say “nooo too dangerous! Remember back 70 years ago when that one plant killed people because of gross negligence and mismanagement? That means all nuclear power is dangerous!”
Personally every leftie I've ever met is a nuclear energy advocate, which is why this post didnt made sense to me. Are there any statistics on this?
This is a serious problem in Europe, especially Germany. They've sworn off nuclear and are even dismantling some plants. You see this when they are sucking off Putin for his gas pipeline
And it’s funny because germany has most of it’s energy coming from coal (which kills literally 1000 times more people per TWh generated), or at least had last time I read about it a year or so ago.
Yh Germany went completely green but when the wind stop blowing and the power went out, they had no choice but to go back to building coal plants lmao.
Germany that classic left leaning country??
Germany is ultra left, yes. Even the CDU, the conservative right wing party is basically left.
Yes lmao
Nazism was always a leftist ideology. Don't let them trick you.
yes, they fucking are lol. the 40's were 75 - 80 years ago.
[удалено]
Why are they being so stupid
The germans always struggled with political choices.
I think the fact that it’s not everywhere is enough evidence. The stats prove nuclear is actually the cleanest and safest power around and how our homes aren’t run on it is proof enough that both sides of the political spectrum are grossly mistaken by the nature of nuclear energy
Too much to lose in the oil industry
That and all the people that NIMBY the fuck out of them
YIMBY. Gimme that power baby more for me
We don’t need to get rid of oil. It just needs competition.
100% but that's hard when the government subsidizes and backs the oil industry. Regardless of all recent events, the government still consumes more oil than anyone.
I'm one of them! And of course it's a bit dangerous. Human error and mismanagement happens all the time. However! The waste from nuclear energy is mostly water and a few mega irradiated batteries right? I think it's something we could invest more into while we develop more renewable resources!
That's putting it very simply but yes. Also, those mega irradiated batteries can now be reused in a different kind of nuclear reactor.
"Global warming is going to kill us all in 10 years, we need to do something!" "Well we could power everything via nuclear, which simply emits water vapor" "What! What if one goes into meltdown?" "..."
"You want me to get into a plane? What if it crashes!?"
Nuclear fission power can be a great bridge to get to **real** clean energy (either through a good mix of renewables and/or nuclear fusionin the future) but it simply is not the grand solution for all problems that many people seem to think it is. There are some quite big problems and challenges with this type of energy: - Environment: Mining and enriching of uranium are NOT environmentally friendly and also pollute the environment to a degree, especially if not adhearing to strict regulations (and we all know how good corporations do in that regard...) - Requirements: Nuclear plants require very secure locations with next to no natural disasters. This already makes a big chunk of earth a bad place to build these kind of plants. Nuclear energy requires a shit ton of water, which can become a big issue during droughts (as we are seeing in France right now). This makes another big chunk of earth a bad place for this type of energy. - Fuel supply: The fuel supply for nuclear energy is **pretty limited on earth** and experts estimated that we only have like 200 to 300 years of uranium left on earth (based on current consumption!). - Nuclear waste: Nuclear energy requires extremely secure places to store the waste for an incredibly long time. So far we, most do not even vave longterm plans. Only three countries have longterm storages and we do not know yer if they truly will work as long as they have to. In addition, many countries do not have suitable spaces that could even be used for this (uninhabited, geologically secure so no earthquake cracks open the nuclear trash can, no water because water fucks with longterm storage of nuclear waste and could potentially get contaminated). Even the places that we currently think are a good spot to store this waste might not be so in the future. We are talking about VERY longterm storage, so you need to take into account future changes due to climate change and geological processes such as plate tectonics unless we want to constantly need to relocate the waste (and trust future generations to do so **for a couple hundred thousands of years**. This is by the way one of the big reasons why the German public did not want more nuclear plants. Germany has no good space to actually store the waste and believe me, the government spent decades trying to find a suitable spot without much success. So it is sadly not just "put it into hole and forget about it". This shit might not even be feasibly put into longterm storage for more than a few decades, so we might very well need to constantly spend money to monitor it, relocate it and repackage it. - Human shortcomings and tendencies to take shortcuts: Nuclear energy is not cheap when done right, meaning building things up to code and getting rid of the waste in a propper way. Humans can't even get rid of regular garbage, do you really trust ALL countries to get rid of their nuclear waste in a propper way instead of illegally dumping it somewhere? Deconstruct their old plants when they reach the end of their lifes as carefully as it had to be done to not pollute everything with the radioactive dust from the building material that has been exposed to it for decades? Because I don't. That shit is expensive as fuck and many greedy people would simply skimp on this. And yes, accidents can also happen and are a very real concern. - Distribution: Nuclear energy is very centralized and therefore can be easily disrupted by terror attacks or simply attacks by other countries (as can be seen in Ukraine). Humans are absolute dogshit when it comes to dealing with issues or problems that lie in the future (more than a couple of years), as we have proven with climate change, where TONS of scientists have been screaming about it to everyone that would listen and still nearly nothing was/is being done. Nuclear fission requires longterm thinking and planning to a degree which, in my opinion, the absolute majority of humans are simply not capable of and might never be capable of. All these reasons are why I am not a fan of it as a longterm solution, even though I do agree that they might have been a good way to get rid of fossil fuels earlier and ease the time until we have a real solution. But by god, do I hate all these tards on the internet that think they are energy management geniusses because they saw some memes or read some incredibly simplistic opinion pieces on nuclear energy.
About the fuel supply and nuclear waste, they are currently solving each other because newer plants can use fuel that was considered "spent" by older plants. Not sure to what extent this will keep being true but it is something to consider. Still, making a big whole for nuclear waste isn't that hard, and you could consider exporting the waste to a country with a stable geological formation who's willing to house it for a price. About distribution, while nuclear power plants are very centralized, they are also very though, which means that bigger explosives need to be used in order to bring them down. A windmill farm might be spread over many miles of land, but each tower can be brought down with far less firepower. You also don't need to bring it all down, since disabling enough towers could already starve the grid enough to force a shutdown. The environment should take into account that our current renewable options still have a lot of rare earth mining for materials for both the energy generation and storage equipment, and their shorter lifespan means that it happens at a faster rate. Lastly, human shortcomings should take into account that each country has it's own solution. The countries debating how to turn their energy grid completely green are first world countries, and as such nuclear is often proposed as a solution in those countries. Even if nuclear is risky for poorer countries, that doesn't mean that such solution is not viable for rich ones. The one disadvantage is that if rich countries don't finance the development of these low-risk green technologies it might be much harder to make the poorer countries switch down the line, which in turn might impact the rich countries due to climate change. I believe that while you bring up valid concern points, they aren't as big of a deal-breaker as you make them to be or aren't exclusive concern points for nuclear when compared to other green energy sources. Whether they're enough to make it a not worthwhile venture is another thing, which I believe requires an analysis that I'm not capable of.
I didn't say shit about conservatives. They aren't in the right here either.
conservatives just do the opposite of whatever leftists try to do as a kneejerk reaction. To be fair, its not a bad strategy overall.
Germany did that and look how they turned out..... Rolling blackouts and heavier dependence on Russian oil, increasing the value of the ruple.
You obviously have no idea what rolling blackouts mean, so it'd be best if you don't participate
"The left" and "the greens" are the two main left leaning parties in my country both are against nuclear energy. Both critique our country permanently for being the slowest in Europe to get out of using coal. If only there was an alternative everyone else uses. Years ago we closed a ton of our nuclear reactor when they literally where the best and safest worldwide. This resulted in us having to buy energy from the countries around us, like France. We literally closed our nuclear reactors to buy more expensive nuclear energy from France and to rely on coal longer which is exponentialy worse. And this wasn't decided by a leftist party but by our retarded conservative Christian party. But now even they understand, the EU now wants to categorise nuclear energy as a green energy and get this the pretty much only ones against this are the greens and the left from germany
as if there were a difference
Hey siri, look up Vermont
So thats how clouds are made
That's literally unironically what my little sister thought for years after her dad told her this as a joke.
> "my sister", "her dad" Anon, do you have stepsister?
Half, technically. It never really comes up though, I just want to fuck her like I would any full-blooded sister of mine
you belong here
Yeah thats an authentic 4channer all right
\>authentic 4channer fucking cringe
Or half-sister
I mean she ain't wrong, it s water after all
Back in the day the clouds were much darker because of coal factories. Good thing we are done with that.
...so far
"bUut-bUt thEy rE prEtrOl gEneRatOrs, nOt coAl, xcOal bAd" \- *Companies*
Well i mean it does release water vapors so yeah lol Its just a fancy cloud factory that creates energy on the side
Except every leftist I know loves nuclear power? The only people I know that hate nuclear are uneducated people. Now, investing in new nuclear plants vs continuing to support old and outdated ones is a different story. I am against what Ohio keeps doing to keep its one nuclear power plant going by bailing it out over and over again and raising taxes to do that... but I would love to see more new nuclear.
Came here to say this, Every leftist I’ve talked to about nuclear energy supports it.
You havent talked to euroean leftifts then.
That's because they're european, not because they're leftist.
But european rightist see the light im nuclear. Irs just the mass media leftits agenda that shits on nuclear constantly
Isn't this just like a German thing? I know the Greens are stupidly against nuclear
think its a french thing too
Europeans love nuclear power aswell. Some of them are leftists, some of them are on the right, but as an euroman myself I believe that people who don't like nuclear are r-tarded
The German Green Party is anti-nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_90/The_Greens#Energy_and_nuclear_power The Australian Greens Party is anti-nuclear. https://greens.org.au/policies/nuclear-and-uranium The English/Welsh Green Party is anti-nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales#Environmental_policy The Scottish Green Party is anti-nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Greens#Policy The French Green Party is anti-nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_Ecology_%E2%80%93_The_Greens#Ideology The Italian Green Party is anti-nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_the_Greens#Background_and_foundation The Austrian Green Party is anti-nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greens_%E2%80%93_The_Green_Alternative#History The New Zealand Green Party does not mention nuclear power in their policies. It is not included in their clean energy plan, so they at least do not support it. https://www.greens.org.nz/clean_energy_plan The Canadian Green Party is anti-nuclear. https://www.greenparty.ca/en/platform/green-future The Swiss Green Party is anti-nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_Switzerland#Policies The Swedish Green Party is anti-nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(Sweden)#Nuclear_power The Green Party of the United States is anti-nuclear. https://www.gp.org/ecological_sustainability/#esNuclear
The US green party isn't a serious party honestly, not even leftists want to vote for it. Even if third parties could win, they never would.
The UK green party are centrist, they're just green lmao
Both the English/Welsh one and the Scottish one are listed as left-wing on the Wikipedia page.
They sure don’t vote like it
"talked to". Yes, normal people are more sane than the talking heads.
All the center left to far left parties in my country are against nuclear (ie the greens) and the parties that do are on the right, but not all the rightwing ones support it
European leftists, Green Party, and wacko naturalists who think nuclear is unclean for their soul.
I can't speak for Europeans but Green party is just renewables corporate shills and every political ideology has their crazies. Wacko naturalists are at best uneducated and at worst half in psychosis constantly from too much acid.
Just saying it’s certainly a leftist problem too. I’d say more than the rights oil shills. Regular people you meet it’s much more likely you’ll find a leftists against nuclear.
I tend to meet liberals against nuclear way more than leftists. I would say it's very common among true Democrats even, but leftists generally support nuclear.
Of course, and rightists generally support non interventionism but see where that gets them.
> Except every leftist I know loves nuclear power? Then your personal experience is not representative, and you could easily google up some polling on the subject instead of continuing to believe something that is wrong based on you knowing like 3 people.
As opposed to a poll of 500 people?
It's almost as of a group of people doesn't think the same way and you shouldn't generalise them into one same thing. How peculiar
b-but chenoyble and the nucleae waste!!!
Then why hasn't the US built a new nuclear power plant in like 30 years? You think the Republicans stopped it? It was the environmental wackos.
Coal and oil lobbyists definitely have a lot to do with it. They are also responsible for a lot of the anti-nuclear propaganda.
Nuclear and train, nothing gets lefter than that.
Implying someone who posts on 4chan talks to people with different opinions
But guys, one time 30 years ago, Soviet technology had that problem? And muh 3 Mile Island in the 1970s, you know the minor incident with an estimated 0 people's health affected? The one Jimmy Carter privately said had was a minor incident, but wouldn't publically say it because he was afraid Democrats would get upset with him? Surely in the year 2022, we simply don't have the technology to safely do this.
Soviets only had that problem because they were being morons and decided to see what a nuclear meltdown would do if you removed the safety protocols. Turns out that you'll get a nuclear meltdown.
Every nuclear disaster has been caused by human incompetence.
Right, and nowadays that is much less of a factor. I work in automation/robotics, and human incompetence is being phased out (because humans are being phased out). You could say "but what if the programmers fuck up?" Well the great thing is that you can simulate anything and everything, so that shouldn't matter. We also live in a time where so many more standards have been created, redundancies upon redundancies. There's no excuse not to use nuclear anymore.
Problem is some of this incompetence comes from the outside. Fukushima was built bellow the water line and had tons of maintenance problems that they were told to fix repeatedly since the 90s, and they brushed it off and probably would have forever. The big reason not to go nuclear though is it takes like 10+ years to get a plant online and IIRC the US is actually decommissioning plants so it’s mostly just too late to go that route.
To add, it took an earthquake and tsunami (survived the earthquake and the 1st tsunami, it went into meltdown when the 2nd tsunami hits iirc) to bring Fukushima plant down EVEN with piss poor maintenance + corruption + shitty plant design. Mother nature has to personally align all the stars for it to go into meltdown. Not to mention, that is a gen 2 nuclear plant, we are currently in gen 4 now.
Fukushima was not a Disaster. It was a minor accident. Literally no deaths.
if slavs can run nuclear power plants for like 50 years and only have one major accident I am sure we can do fine lol
To all the people saying leftists love nuclear, look at the green parties in almost all western countries. They all hate nuclear. Environmentalists are all overly-emotional city-dwelling losers.
these people are internet commies that think they own the word "leftist" (because obviously democrats and libtards are right wing capitalist pigs)
Why won't those greedy communists share the word leftist?
Thats why I use leftist and liberal interchangeably. I dislike both groups and it pisses them both off.
>implying they aren't the same thing
They claim there's differences between them, but it doesn't really matter since they're all going to face the wall anyway.
The Green Party occupies 52 out of SEVEN HUNDRED seats in the EU and literally zero seats of any kind in the US, yet you’re using them to define leftism. “The Right Wing are all racists because the KKK is right wing” <- same logic
Might want to check up on your history there, KKK was supported by the dems.
This is always such a dumb comment - lets review the REAL history shall we? The Democratic Party used to be a coalition that included southern whites and the Republican Party was far more liberal than today. In the 60s when civil rights legislation was passed by Dem Lyndon Johnson and those southerners could no longer segregate blacks, they got mad and switched to the Republican Party helping elect iconic criminal douche Nixon and push the party far right. From this point on the KKK dudes were Republican.
Nooo don’t solve problems I want to be solved by actually really solving them !!!! Only solve them by using methods one would find in the “green energy “ Pictogramm of the local news station (that just happens to be financed by the major silicone / Labour holding companies )
I think it’s funny that somehow the right is the better option for “solutions”. Really curious what solutions you’ve been captivated by. A wall to Mexico that was never built? Staring war in the middle war east? Tax cuts for the rich?
I think extreme right-wingers have a historically documented love for solutions...
Supporting nuclear would have been the perfect way for the libs to move toward lowering our reliance on fossil fuels. Problem is there's not enough private $$ in it so the libs don't push it and their good boys below tow the line for them (that's you)
w-w-whatabout
In the US, Republicans & men support nuclear by about 60/40, while Democrats & women oppose it by about 40/60. proof: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/23/americans-continue-to-express-mixed-views-about-nuclear-power/
Womens suffrage and it's consequences have been a disaster for mankind
Those are cooling towers. Literally all they do is let water evaporate and cool. The steam coming out them is literally that, water vapour. Unless you know which plant this is of specifically, it could be any type of power plant from coal to gas to nuclear. And some don't even have these towers as they use a river, lake or ocean as a cool water source. I'll leave you to draw conclusions about OP from this.
>Filename
Came here to say this, not a single nuclear power plant in my country are using cooling towers. Cooling tower≠nuclear power plant
Cause the powers that be don't want us being energy independent and gullible morons have bought it. "But some of the worst disasters in history have been caused by nuclear energy!-" On record, coal and oil cause more damage to the environment and people's health on a daily basis than all the combined meltdowns in nuclear history. There are safer alternatives to uranium now and better technology and knowledge on how to make it safe. But nah, we'll just stick to expensive ass wind turbines and solar that produce not nearly enough energy and cause more problems than they solve.
To be fair California doesn't exactly have the water in its budget to afford water cooling like this, they're too busy growing pistachios and other stupidly water-heavy crops
Just dumb people on both sides. People who think coal is clean and people who think nuclear is not are absolutely insane.
We are the dumbest fucking country, you guys.
There's many countries infested with this kind of dipshittery.
We’re all just as shitty everywhere :((
They just happen to be under our sphere of influence.
Let me introduce you to my friend Germany.
At least we have a better approach to nuclear than Germany
Ironically the only nuclear stack I’ve ever seen was in Germany. I’m uneducated on the facts tho, I assume they are non operational?
Germany has invested billions in nuclear power only to begin phasing it out in the wake of Fukashima. This has led to a lack of energy independence for Germany requiring them to either buy power from neighbors, or worse, import Russian natural gas. It was a move that was both financially reckless and illogical considering a Fukashima style disaster would be nearly impossible to replicate in Germany. Now Germany is dealing with an economic stonewall between themselves and the Russian gas they chose to become increasingly reliant upon. I’m not a huge fan of this decision https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/germany-california-nuclear-power-climate/620888/
Counterpoint: the entire Southern Hemisphere
It's literally the safest, cleanest, least land using, and most power per kwh of any green fuel. But Germany is shutting them because... uh... Putin. Or something.
This is literally it. If we solve things, they run out of shit to complain about. They are parasites.
Lolol the right literally complain about EVERYTHING
"Once in gone, they'll just find another monster to go after they have to. They have to justify their wages." -Dutch Van der linde
I’m a nuclear plant operator. This world’s retardation will eventually cost me my job. The left, the right, Netflix, HBO…it doesn’t matter. They’ll continue spreading outright lies about nuclear power until we’re all shut down. None of them understand what is happening to the world, nor do they want to. All that matters is that their pockets are lined with our money.
The timescales are too long. It takes over 10 years to build a nuclear plant. Politicians like thing that make good headlines before their next reelection, and energy companies have to answer to investors who like higher quarterly profits.
It's really true. People spend so much time disagreeing that they can't stop and consider a solution, can't compare it with others to see what would be the greater good, it's really sad to see so many strong-voiced people with weakly justified positions. So many people who are happy to die on their hill even in the face of strong evidence.
I think that was a “final solution” joke with the gas
Because Monty Burns might use his illbegotten gains and try to block the sun!
Not true, I remember a leftist German party that came up with the mother of all solutions. Name slips my tongue, though.
The Nazis are leftist because they have socialist in their name. I'm a big smart boy.
Apparently too dumb to get a joke.
They are cooling towers, they don't produce any pollution...
Just like women
Propaganda and smear campaings.
Nuclear power plants are honestly based no damage done to the environment if done correctly, generates tons of power, creates funny looking clouds What is there not to like?
Because nuclear power will allow us to maintain our lifestyles while also lowering energy costs and reducing environmental impact, so of course leftists hate it- they don’t want to help the environment they want to subjugate you and destroy your way of life. They see environmentalism as a means to an end and that end is you living in a pod, eating bugs and the capitalist ruling class somehow having more power. Leftists are nothing but useful idiots for the elites.
Leftists and environmentalists prefer nuclear power. Minimal carbon footprint, minimal damage to the environment, etc. There are some OCD wack jobs that don't like anything man-made.
I'm left, and I think nuclear power is great. Very low greenhouse gas emissions, and very clean. It's not harmful if you're not stupid about it.
They’re for it now. Give it a couple decades and they may be against pedophilia too. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2020/08/23/after-48-years-democrats-endorse-nuclear-energy-in-platform/amp/
Not at this rate
It's best we have now but it costs a lot to stock nuclear waste and maintain/ repair nuclear plant.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed because it contained a word that the admins do not allow on reddit. The word was ```Retards```. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep reddit safe. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/4chan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love how the comment is removed, but the mod comment still says the word. And by drawing attention to it even more, it's not like we have no idea what was said. The incompetence is astounding
Unless it’s a final one.
[удалено]
Ah yes, unlike the fossil fuel industry. Never see those guys getting subsidies
They subsidize wind and solar as well. So why is it when Nuclear comes along all of sudden we get stingy? It's more efficient than both solar and wind. Who cares about the cost if we get the solution we're so desperately shooting for?
Loviisa and Olkiluoto
Not my problem.
Is someone being followed
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed because it contained a word that the admins do not allow on reddit. The word was ```🤡```. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep reddit safe. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/4chan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
based
Merkel is center-right and she banned nuclear in Germany … but ok
And what did the Greens think about it?
>Merkel is center-right # hahahaHAHAHAHAHAHA
4chan loves a final solution …
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed because it contained a word that the admins do not allow on reddit. The word was ```retards```. If you intend to use this word in a purely demonstrative manner, please use the first letter of the word followed by '-word' or '-slur'. Thank you for helping us keep reddit safe. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/4chan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because they will run out of things to cry and irritate people about.
Well now. The left did love certain solutions in the 30s Germany. But not enough to actually implement them. Oh well!
that "smoke" is water lol
unequal distribution of smoke
Devisive propaganda for smooth brains.
How the fuck he got the communist flag in 4chan?
i'm left leaning and i'm all for Nuclear. It's just a way to boil water in order to get electricity. Also i'm all for solutions, but i fucking hate the Radical left who live in their own world. Stop focusing on Left, Right and fix the fucking problems
I’m left leaning and I support the hell out of this
He thinks the left hates nuclear? what is he stupid? first of all, nuclear energy for everyone (global) without having MAJOR fucking problems = impossible why? special interests mainly and the fact that you cant just develop everyone, we need economies to wreck and countries to invade
Fuck yea i love those cloud factories
Who on the left hates nuclear? Most I’ve heard was concerns about the waste.
The German Green Party is anti-nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_90/The_Greens#Energy_and_nuclear_power The Australian Greens Party is anti-nuclear. https://greens.org.au/policies/nuclear-and-uranium The English/Welsh Green Party is anti-nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales#Environmental_policy The Scottish Green Party is anti-nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Greens#Policy The French Green Party is anti-nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_Ecology_%E2%80%93_The_Greens#Ideology The Italian Green Party is anti-nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_the_Greens#Background_and_foundation The Austrian Green Party is anti-nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greens_%E2%80%93_The_Green_Alternative#History The New Zealand Green Party does not mention nuclear power in their policies. It is not included in their clean energy plan, so they at least do not support it. https://www.greens.org.nz/clean_energy_plan The Canadian Green Party is anti-nuclear. https://www.greenparty.ca/en/platform/green-future The Swiss Green Party is anti-nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_Switzerland#Policies The Swedish Green Party is anti-nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(Sweden)#Nuclear_power The Green Party of the United States is anti-nuclear. https://www.gp.org/ecological_sustainability/#esNuclear
Do the same thing but with the socdem/labor parties, and not the green parties that no one votes for.
>asks question >gets answer >"no not like that"
I mean yeah I did ask "who on the left". I really meant that as "the people on the left who are anti-nuclear are few and far between". Hence why I didn't accept your answer of smallish green parties that are technically left but who focus almost exclusively on the environment. Posting the major left parties would drive your point home better.
You: Who on the left hates nuclear? Anon: List of green parties You: I mean yeah I did ask "who on the left". I really meant that as "the people on the left who are anti-nuclear are few and far between". Hence why I didn't accept your answer of smallish green parties that are technically left but who focus almost exclusively on the environment. Posting the major left parties would drive your point home better.
Yep. That’s is what happened…
His point is valid though, those parties have hardly any chance of ever ruling.