this post was submitted on 04 May 2026
724 points (90.3% liked)

General Memes & Private Chuckle

961 readers
80 users here now

Welcome to General Memes

Memes for the masses, chuckles for the chosen.

Rule 1: Be Civil, Not CruelWe’re here for laughs, not fights.

  • No harassment, dogpiling, or brigading
  • No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
  • Keep it light — argue in the comments, not with insults

Rule 2: No Forbidden FormatsNot every image deserves immortality on the memmlefield. That means:

  • No spam or scams
  • No porn or sexually explicit content
  • No illegal content (seriously, don’t ruin the fun)
  • NSFW memes must be properly tagged

If you see a post that breaks the rules, report it so the mods can take care of it.

Otherwise consider this your call to duty. Get posting or laughing. Up to you

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Nuclear is the best btw.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Nuclear is only safe under the constant management of a stable global society. We don’t live in a stable society so I don’t support nuclear.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 44 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Nuclear is only safe under the constant management of a stable global society.

Fossil fuels aren't safe even with constant management and a stable global society.

[–] naught101@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (6 children)

It's very hard to kill millions with solar panels

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 8 points 1 month ago

But not impossible, if we try.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Solar powered attack drone.

It's not that hard.

[–] dsilverz@calckey.world 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

@naught101@lemmy.world @OwOarchist@pawb.social @Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Sadly, solar panels do kill thousands of birds/avians.

[...] the largest solar power plant in the world, Ivanpah Solar Plant, located in the Mojave Desert in California, is believed to be responsible for at least 6,000 bird deaths each year, as the birds can suffer severe burns or become incinerated if they fly too close to the 40-foot towers that concentrate sunlight from five square miles of solar panels. These numbers are likely an underestimation, as the sight of birds and insects rapidly immolated as they soar too close to the towers, which can reach temperatures of 1000 degrees Fahrenheit

(Source)

Even when birds don't get burnt alive, the reflection of the sunlight from the surface of solar panels is akin to pointing lasers at airplanes and ending up blinding the pilots.

And as I've been an owl-biased person lately, I'd say owls are likely going to be the most affected because their breathtakingly beautiful deep eyes are larger than most avians, therefore having more surface area for the reflected sunlight to blind them, and because they're so reliant on their accurate vision to hunt, blindness will definitely mean death...

I don't know why solar panels have to be this reflective, (yeah, I know, there's a glass protecting the semiconductor from the elements, still) it even seems counterintuitive because you're losing lots of energy in form of reflected light. Ideally, solar panels should be akin to a vantablack, totally dark and, therefore, as fully light-absorbing as possible, practically a human-made optical black hole.

Still, solar energy seems gazillion times better than both nuclear and fossil fuels, because some things that were buried by Mother Nature should stay buried, and both nuclear and fossil fuels digs things that Mother Nature have been burying for ages. Should nuclear power facilities need more nuclear fuel, there are currently 12,187 (as of 2025, maybe an outdated number from Federation of American Scientists) potential sources for the carcinogenic hot stone eager to be dismantled by way more sane scientists instead of being used by "M.A.D." (iykwim) hominids in green garments and boots.

[–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don’t know why solar panels have to be this reflective

Because those types of solar plants don't use photovoltaic cells, they use mirrors to focus sunlight to a point where the resulting heat is used to generate electricity. So, same basic effect as using a magnifying glass to start a fire to anything that passes through that.

It gets toasty.

They're also mostly falling out of favour, losing out to photovoltaic panels. Which are simpler to make, operate, and are vastly cheaper to boot, while also not being reflective (They are protected by a layer of glass, so there's a minimum amount of reflection simply because they're smooth, but they're not mirrors).

[–] dsilverz@calckey.world 1 points 1 month ago

@The_Decryptor@aussie.zone @Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com

By "I don't know why solar panels have to be this reflective", I meant PV panels as well. Yes, the article I linked, regarding Ivanpah, refers to a solar thermal, which is worse give the way its designed as a panopticon conjuring a death ray out of sunlight. But solar panels aren't less unsafe for beings high in the skies:

They’re also mostly falling out of favour, losing out to photovoltaic panels. Which are simpler to make, operate, and are vastly cheaper to boot, while also not being reflective (They are protected by a layer of glass, so there’s a minimum amount of reflection simply because they’re smooth, but they’re not mirrors).

I tend to disagree. The glass coating is still a flat smooth glass, practically similar to that of a mirror. Should the glass coating be rough, it would reduce the specular reflection, but this would likely affect the absorption of sunlight by the PV semiconductors.

On top of that, we're talking about a pair of eyes seeing the reflection from height, which won't be the same as if you stare at it standing in ground level. In fact, pilots can get temporarily blinded by solar panels and this can pose dangers to aviation (as per IATA).

If trained humans are affected, you betcha birds are even more affected by having eyes more sensitive than ours. Hence my comment on this regard, because we humans have this annoying bias of worrying more about other humans (because, after all, we're humans) than worrying about the countless other species who have been inhabiting Earth way before an hominin descended from the tree to play with fire and having a "cogito ergo sum" delusional moment. I'm not saying we shouldn't worry about other humans, I'm saying we are far from being the only tenant species temporarily inhabiting this Pale Blue Dot.

[–] naught101@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That 6000 figure is from a solar thermal plant, not solar PV. Solar panel reflections are nothing like lasers. And owls would not be affected because they fly at night...

[–] dsilverz@calckey.world 0 points 1 month ago

@naught101@lemmy.world @Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com

That 6000 figure is from a solar thermal plant, not solar PV.

Yes, but PV has a highly reflective coating, which reflects sunlight almost like a mirror. It won't burn the birds, but then we get to another part of your reply:

Solar panel reflections are nothing like lasers.

Which is correct to a certain extent... but looking at a mirror which is reflecting the sunlight doesn't seem that nice to the eyes, especially sensitive eyes of a bird looking at it from height (where the sunlight reflection may or may not converge from multiple panels positioned together, hence my analogy to lasers) and possibly mistaking it for a lake (glass panels aren't something naturally occurring, it's something we hominids built, something unbeknownst to other species, so the chances are the reflective surface will seem like the surface of a water body, especially in deserts where the bird will be thirsty). This "Siren call from the light" is similar to how moths end up colliding with lamps: they don't know the concept of "light emitter" so their instincts mistake it for the Full Moon which means mating.

Notice: birds being killed by solar panels doesn't necessarily mean the panels are directly killing them; rather, it's the specular reflection from their glass coating rendering the birds disoriented (because, again, the thing looks like a lake but isn't a lake), which in turn will expose them to unnecessary risks, such as being temporarily blinded (akin to how drivers can get blinded from getting headlights unwittingly blasting at their eyes) and/or colliding mid-flight due to misguided spatial notion and unseen obstacles. Because it's an avian death indirectly (and not directly) caused by the panels, it's unlikely to become statistics, it'll likely look like the bird died of "natural causes". In fact, many human activities indirectly kill birds, especially when we talk about climate change, and I guess/hope you know how this lack of direct harm doesn't mean climate change isn't doing harms to wildlife.

And owls would not be affected because they fly at night…

Seems like you don't know some of the amazing diurnal and crepuscular owls yet, so here it goes:

- Surnia ulula (Northern Hawk Owl, primarily diurnal):
https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/nohowl/cur/introduction
- Asio flammeus (Short-eared Owl, active day and night):
https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/sheowl/cur/introduction
- Athene cunicularia (Burrowing Owl, one of my favorites, active day and night): https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/burowl/cur/introduction
- Bubo virginianus (Great Horned Owl, can be active during twilight): https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/grhowl/cur/behavior

There are others, and as I said in another reply in this thread, there's the possibility that a nocturnal owl will be disturbed by something (corvids harassing her, or human activity) which will force her to wake up and flee to a safer place.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This has been debunked again and again. What a stupid take.

[–] dsilverz@calckey.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

@Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com @Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com

What exactly are you referring to? My comment is lengthy and mentions a lot of things.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Solar panels kills birds.

We already debunked wind turbines kill birds.

The thing is, that yes, even windows kills birds.

You know what kills birds 1.000 times more than all three combined?

Cats.

It's an invented "discussion" to blame renewables. You don't think oil&gas kills way way way way more?

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

birds/avians

lol, why specify both here? Tell me more about these non-bird avians and/or these non-avian birds...

I’d say owls are likely going to be the most affected

Aren't they only active at night, though? The solar farm should pose no hazard at all during the night. Can't be blinded or immolated by reflected sunlight when the sun's not out.

[–] dsilverz@calckey.world 0 points 1 month ago

@OwOarchist@pawb.social @Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com

lol, why specify both here? Tell me more about these non-bird avians and/or these non-avian birds…

At least to me, an ESL (English as a second language) person, both words carry different meanings:

Birds = Passeriformes, such as corvids, mockingbirds, parakeets, etc...
Avians = everyone else from Aves clade, especially the "larger" ones, such as owls, falcons, eagles and swans, but also hawks and chickens.

In Portuguese (I'm Brazilian) we have "pássaros" and "aves", which are definitely going to refer to different winged beings, and owls aren't passerines, therefore they'd be more of an "ave" than a "pássaro".

Both of these categories, however, have species that are equally going to be affected by solar panels, hence my distinction and inclusiveness.

Aren’t they only active at night, though?

That's the beauty of Strigiformes: there are lots of misconceptions about owls in what our common sense believes. There are diurnal and crepuscular owls, such as the northern hawk-owl (Surnia ulula) and the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia, although she isn't used to fly as higher as her cousins because, and here's another common sense belief to be broken, she doesn't nest on trees and other higher places, she nests underground).

Many owls are crepuscular, active during dawn/dusk when the sun has a lower apparent angle. Depending on the solar panels' position and arrangement (e.g. solar panels facing slightly north/south), this means a sunlight reflected towards the far horizon instead of reflecting upwards. Given how the sunlight during dawn/dusk is fainter, yeah, it's not gonna burn the avians/birds, however it'll definitely blind them if they're flying towards the solar panels, because they'll be looking directly at a focused and magnified sunglare.

And even the so-defined "nocturnal owls" may meet the sunlight, either by being faced by danger/annoyance during sleep/roosting (such as corvids harassing owls or evil hominids attacking owls, among other situations requiring the owl to wake up and flee) or (a guess of mine) by getting active earlier during summer (when sunset happens later than usual), then they'll face the same problem as their crepuscular/diurnal cousins.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Yes but historically speaking, an oil fire doesn’t render the area immediately uninhabitable for thousands of years.

As long as we don’t light oil on fire constantly all over the planet and let it burn for decades, we’re gonna be fine.

[–] Krono@lemmy.today 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Historically speaking, the cumulative effect of lighting oil on fire is set to make the entire planet uninhabitable, permanently.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It won't be permanent, it'll just be noticeable in evolutionary time. Think K-T or End Permian events not the collapse of the magnetosphere. Mind you that's really bad. Like, I'm comparing this to the death of the non-avian dinosaurs and an event called the great dying, with our best case scenario being an extinction event more reminiscent of those demarking minor change in evolutionary era, it's really fucking bad. But there's reasonable hope that a small spattering of species of various types (except megafauna, we're fucked) will survive and adapt.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 9 points 1 month ago

an oil fire doesn’t render the area immediately uninhabitable for thousands of years

But the production and burning of it releases just as much radiation and causes just as much cancer. (Actually more.)

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Nuclear doesn't either. It's just that we're much safer (and made more scared) or radiation. We're overly cautious. It's actually been shown that a little bit more radiation than background may actually be good for you.

(Edit: Watch this before you downvote: https://youtu.be/gzdLdNRaPKc)

Three mile island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl are pretty much safe. (Chernobyl is slightly more dangerous, because there's the potential for hot debris, but that's unlikely at this point. If you're careful, it's safe. If people were to live there, it'd be safe wherever they are, as they'd ensure there's no hot objects.) The last reactor at Chernobyl shut down in 2000, meaning they were working there and operating it for decades safely after the disaster. Three mile Island was operating until 2019 safely, and since there have been plans made to bring it back online.

[–] xvapx@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's actually been shown that a little bit more radiation than background may actually be good for you.

Doubt

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

Watch this video before you doubt it without looking into it. The sources he uses are listed in the description.

https://youtu.be/gzdLdNRaPKc

[–] JillyB@beehaw.org 31 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That feels kind of all-or-nothing. Environmental issues are part of the problem destabilizing societies. Overall, the poisoning of the environment is much worse and much less contained with fossil fuels than with nuclear power. Distant future societies might have no knowledge of nuclear storage sites and a few people might even die before they realize they need to stop breaking into the underground barrels. But a lot more people will die from the environmental havoc that we're causing with fossil fuels. And they can't just stay away from the barrels to avoid that one.

Just to be clear, I think wind and solar (and geothermal where appropriate) are the best ways to get off of fossil fuels. They've gotten a lot cheaper than nuclear so it doesn't make much sense to build new reactors. But it also doesn't make much sense to shut them down if nuclear waste is the only issue.

[–] diffaldo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I agree but also think that we should build both nuclear and renewables. Because we dont have much time left.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Of course. Why wouldn't we use both?

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago

Just like a financial portfolio, our energy ecosystem is only safe if it's well and proper distributed. Excess energy can be stored, or simply routed to ground, programs that incentivise energy use during unexpected peak periods already exist, there's absolutely no reason not to over-plan and engineer it just to avoid shit like what goes down in Texas almost every year...

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 month ago

I like your thoughtful take and that you didn’t leap to the assumption that I support fossil fuels. Renewables are the way, and we had renewables (windmills and such) before we had electricity.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 23 points 1 month ago (2 children)

...O ...K ... nothing is going to destabilize global society as badly as the collapse of crop growing cycles due to fossil-fuel-induced climate change.

Anything we can do to reduce burning fossil fuels is going to improve global stability.

[–] RamenJunkie@midwest.social 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

Yes, but why waste time and effort with a stopgap like Nuclear when we can just go to wind and solar that we already have the tech for?

Bonus, the more its used, the more we learn, the better it gets for efficiency and ability to manufacture.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Nuclear is not a stop gap. It's a solution.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Both things can be true. The comment you're responding to literally does not mention FF.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The comment you’re responding to literally does not mention FF.

Does it need to? That's the alternative we're talking about, whether it's mentioned specifically or not.

Wind and solar are great and have become so good in the past decade that they're more cost effective than everything else, but they still aren't applicable everywhere, most often due to real estate requirements. Nuclear reactors are bulky too, but nothing compared to the amount of space you need for solar arrays or wind turbines to generate an equivalent amount of electricity. For the places where wind and solar can't fit, it's fossil fuels or nuclear.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's the alternative you're talking about. Straw men are such mark-ass bitches, right?

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What alternative do you propose?

[–] naught101@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] naught101@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

true, sorry, skimming the thread

[–] vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 month ago

Not really, no. It is safe pretty much regardless. On-site caskets are bomb proof and contain waste safe enough that it wouldn't make sense for a dirty bomb. Though if you really care then we can just stop considering mountains sacred and instead starting burying the waste as we have planned and fully considered all pros and cons towards 70 years ago.

[–] Luminous5481@anarchist.nexus 8 points 1 month ago

fossil fuels aren't safe no matter the state of global society

[–] redsand@infosec.pub 3 points 1 month ago

I really hate people thinking all of nuclear is light water reactors

[–] RamenJunkie@midwest.social 3 points 1 month ago

Why have all safety measures when half do and we save money for shareholders!

[–] atro_city@fedia.io -1 points 1 month ago

"I want change but it should be immediate with no transition".