Unpopular Opinion

6393 readers

24 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] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

i just don’t think this is a valuable question to ask

But well, it kind of is! When looking at energy systems, each type of plant you put into the system has (often counterintuitive) consequences on the rest of the system. And this is especially true for nuclear power. That is why it IS important to get an idea of how much nuclear energy you want to have in your energy mix, because only then you can determine if your energy system is even sustainable.

Therefore, my question stands unchanged. Or maybe we can make it a little broader: How do you think that the energy system would need to look like?

I’m content to stick by my layman position that anything that gets us away from pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is better in the short term.

And I fully agree with you on that. I just want to discuss with you if nuclear is really the solution you think it is. (Because it probably isn't.)

We already have the knowledge and infrastructure to do so way faster by using nuclear as a leg up

Are you aware of how little nuclear power there is currently in the energy-mix, what time it takes to build new ones and how much (usable) uranium exists on the planet? (I can tell you if you don't want to look it up - just ask.) Because you might have wrong expectations of the technical potential of this energy source.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

you are asking me to be an expert on topics i have already admitted to being not studied in. that’s not fair because i came into this conversation to defend my position that being anti-nuclear is not well suited to the environmentalist agenda. and nothing else.

i know that france has successfully achieved like 70% nuclear power production, while renewables are slowly ticking up. and i am not against that. that is good. because they aren’t using fossil fuel to get that electricity. if they had waited around for renewables research to catch up they’d still be reliant on coal and oil like the rest of us. if they were forced to shut down all nuclear plants, fossil fuels would spike to take up the slack.

that’s my position. that’s all i’m expressing. you are trying to drag the discussion somewhere else, and that’s not a winning move.