1006
this post was submitted on 14 May 2026
1006 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
84769 readers
3331 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
So you see how it’s bad, unless we’re talking about humans literally dying as a result.
Yay? Am I supposed to give nuclear a point because “only” the environment and animal life was trashed? Okay, sure. “Less Deadly To Humans” than oil. Y’know people still eat Gulf seafood, but if that pipe was spewing radioactive waste for a month, they wouldn’t.
Actually, they probably would. I dunno. Renewables. That’s all.
You're missing the part where Fukushima and Chernobyl were the only major/catastrophic nuclear power accidents in history (edit: aside from a wild one from the 50s before we really understood nuclear energy). And both of them were a result of both bad policy and, more importantly, bad tech/design.
Chernobyl was especially stupid on literally every level possible.
And, like I said earlier but you seem to have "forgotten", nuclear is safer (has caused less deaths) than ALL other forms of power generation (including renewables) other than solar. And it's almost on par with solar.
Everything has trade-offs.
Solar needs a LOT of land, works only during the day. Less effective the further north/south you get from the equator.
Wind only works well in certain regions, and requires a significant amount of concrete to build.
Wave power generation only works along coastlines or out at sea. And transmitting that power to where it's needed isn't easy and is costly.
Hydro dams are extremely limited to where they can be built, and transitional designs are extremely damaging (although newer types are much better)
Nuclear plants can be built just about anywhere. And newer designs are extremely safe. Canada's CanDu reactors are practically instructable.
A proper solution is a baseline of nuclear with wind, solar, hydro being built where possible.
No shit?
Guess what - we already take up a lot of land. Put some solar panels up there ffs. And geothermal’s a thing just fyi.
Damn you’re full of useful information.
Instructable? Cool. That’s a thing nuclear designs should be.
We actually agree on that but your nuclear blathering takes too long. You got a 10’ x 10’ reactor for Hudson Bay then kudos, NOW can we get renewables set up OH AND a distribution network for our friends too far north or south to benefit from 12 hours of sun a day like in Norway o wait
None.
Can I send you the bill?
Same question.
Most people think so.
Autocorrect on mobile is a thing. Nice deflection from the main argument that you can't refute. I had meant to write "indestructible", and it's true. CanDu has several safety features and design features that make a meltdown functionally impossible.
I call bull on that, nearly every single comment from you is about how "nuclear isn't safe".
Words are hard, huh?