Unpopular Opinion

6392 readers

30 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!

How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.

If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.

Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)

If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].

Rules:

1. NO POLITICS

Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.

2. Be civil.

Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...

Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

5. No trolling.

This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

105

You can't claim to be an environmentalist and be anti-nuclear energy at the same time (self.unpopularopinion)

submitted 9 months ago by 3volver to c/unpopularopinion

166 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What half is missing in your opinion?

The part that I wrote immediately after that. You don’t need as much mining to get an equivalent amount of nuclear energy, by several orders of magnitude.

I oppose both though.

Yeah I just wasn’t aware of your position since your top comment was just a big quote. I’m with you, sorry for coming in harder than was necessary.

I’d just say, when I say I “oppose both” I oppose nuclear in a very minor sense in comparison to my vehement opposition to fossil fuel. In a situation where a region or country finds it more cost effective to build nuclear plants in order to replace coal in the short term? I’d never describe myself as “anti-nuclear” in that case.

I think a lot of comments here are equivocating being “anti-nuclear” (NIMBY style, which is what OP actually wrote) with being concious of nuclear’s downsides. The reality is is that current gen renewables cannot keep up with certain demands, such as peak loads, in the same way nuclear can. Which means that *for now, in some cases and areas*, going full nuclear energy is a very healthy option in comparison to waiting it out on coal fumes until one day renewables hopefully get better.

tldr, Do both at once. Ditch fossils always. Renewable > nuclear, except when experts find that it is more cost effective in the short term.

[–] Nacktmull 4 points 9 months ago

I agree with that as long as nuclear is used as transition tech and phased out asap.