World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Europe really should be expanding it's offshore wind resources faster.
But the demand for gas is only going to go one way.
We need more nuclear reactors
Far too expensive, far too inflexible, far too long to build.
They have no upsides on any metric.
Except the lack of greenhouse gas emissions, once up and running.
If we actually started developing them on any sort of scale most of those negatives you mention will be negated.
Flexibility, as in the inability to quickly ramp down, can be solved with storage or with generating hydrogen.
Please tell me which US companies you trust to not cut corners on construction and safety for profit
Sorry, I was replying to a comment about offshore wind in the EU.
Supposedly you'd set up some proper regulations, implement checks and balances but given the current US business and political climate; good question.
Solar, wind and batteries has no greenhouse gas emissions at a fraction of price and fraction of the time to built. Australia did an analysis of this recently and said their is no reason to built any nuclear at all.
Nuclear is pushed by the oil and companies because it will slow transition away from oil and gas. Same as hydrogen, way worse than batteries and also made by fossil fuels at the moment. But by pushing for that it slows the transition away from things that actually work. Namely, solar wind and batteries.
Flexibility at a huge huge cost and great inefficiency. Like I said no upsides over alternatives.
Going 100% renewable is going to require an immense amount of storage, nevermind their instability. Any base load we can replace with nuclear is going to lessen that burden.
EV's are heavy and require a ton of rare Lithium.
Using over capacity to generate hydrogen seems to me like a way to solve that. Hydrogen which in turn can be used to power cars, trucks, ships.
I don't see how nuclear would slow the transition away from oil and gas.
You need storage to cover when demand does not match supply. Nuclear doesn't reduce the difference between supply and demand. It has no flexibility so makes no meaningful difference to storage.
Lithium isn't that rare. Sodium batteries are being manufactured today.
Hydrogen manufacturing is super inefficient.
Its a question of cost and time. You could run a country on nuclear but its far cheaper and quicker to do it with renewables. But pushing for something that isn't really a viable solution nuclear and hydrogen. It delays uptake of the real solution which is wind, solar and batteries.
How does it not?
There's a certain "base load" to any power grid which could easily be done by "inflexible" nuclear powerplants.
Sodium doesn't address the problem with EV weight.
Inefficiency is fine if you have an abundance of energy.
Running a country exclusively on renewables comes with its own costs in storage and emergency solutions.
I'm not saying "go exclusively nuclear" either. Supplementing it with renewables should be done.
Say your power supply is 100 low power and 150 high power demand. Giving a need of 50 difference.
If you build Nuclear at say 80. It will give a remanding demand of 20 low power and 70 high power. But the difference remains 50. Nuclear doesn't solve the issue of supply matching demand in anyway.
EV's are going to weigh a lot. Lithium will probably be the main usage in cars. But really the solution is less cars. Need trains.
I agree but I think that route will give lower cost, quicker roll out and less co2
It may not reduce the delta, but we gotta cover the base load somehow. Nuclear is ideal for that job.
It's not ideal as it's more expensive than alternatives, and slower. I'm not making the decision so it doesn't matter.
But i will say Australia just made the decision that nuclear has no place and China built a lot of nuclear then stopped and started rolling out renewables.
I don't think 100% renewable is the way to go, given that energy output can vary.
And as long as any amount of fossil fuels are left in the energy supply chain, I'd rather they be replaced with nuclear. Even if it's more expensive.
Perhaps not directly, but assuming you live in a democracy your vote does matter.