Bruh i saw this trash of a bait post yesterday already.
Nobody with more than 3 brain cells is defending coal.
But Nuclear is also shit (unless u have subs to run or nukes to build, and hence can use civil nuclear plants, refining, and mining to offload some of the military bill onto the backs of civilians).
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SINGLE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT THAT WAS PROFITABLE THUOUT ITS WHOLE LIFE CIRCLE.
Take your god damn bait meme and shove it up your reactor pressure vessel.
Because people call nuclear cheap, when it in reality isnt, they just cherry pick a smol time slot while ignoring states pumping money into it before and after main run time.
Nuclear is dirt cheap if you level the playing field and also make all other sources pay to store waste eternally. The damage caused by climate change is ranging into the trillions, but no other fossil fuel pays for it.
Only nuclear power is expected to nearly package their waste, everyone else gets to spread it around the entire planet, slowly killing every living species.
ah yeah tell me more how neat uranium mines are cleaned up and how they not spread radioactive dust over the landscape. tell me more about how solar pannels cant be recycled and have to be watched for millions of years so nobody touches em
2 - Nuclear and renewables are the way to go. Renewables are the bicycles of energy, cheap, clean, easily to make and you can put em anywhere. But sometimes a bike won’t work. Nuclear are the trains, expensive to build and requiring lots of effort… but without trains, people will drive cars every time a bike won’t work.
If you oppose Nuclear, you’re promoting coal. If you oppose solar, you’re promoting coal.
1 if we stop debating the same dumb ideas for centuries maybe my anger will fade
2 I really hope you are ragebaiting, comparing nuclear to trains is sooo out there.
A train is good for the climate, good for socioeconomic fairness (cheap), easy to build, easy to change and has basically no waste at all.
Nuclear is bad for the climate, has the worst waste humanity can produce, is socioeconomically bad for everyone near the waste or working in the mines under inhumane coditions, the waste will last longer than the oldest human made structure, we do not have the tools to plan for that kind of timespan AT ALL, everyone saying he can build structures safe for that time is lying or mislead.
And nuclear is hard and expensive to build.
No, we dont need nuclear, no matter what your personal experience with bicycles is.
No, opposing nuclear is not promoting coal, dunno who told you this, but its wrong. Renewables are the way to go.
We already have ways to store renewable energy, and we have just started researching it there is a lot more to come, fission is basically optimized and still way worse.
Even in unicorn situations where our storage is not sufficient there are better alternatives than nuclear, bio-gas for example.
The only reason someone would want nuclear is to offload costs of building bombs and submarines to the public otherwise needed to be played for by military budget.
There is not a single reason someone to build reactors, especially not trains and bikes.
Nuclear has basically no CO2 output, so that’s wrong.
has the worst waste humanity can produce (…) we do not have the tools to plan for that kind of timespan AT ALL, everyone saying he can build structures safe for that time is lying or mislead.
There’s one super simple method. We just don’t use it, because it flies in the face of regular waste disposal and remediation methods: Grind up the waste, pour it in concrete pellets, mix it with the mining tailings and chuck it back into the hole you found it. You’re basically restoring the status quo if you do that. The only reason we don’t do this is because legal frameworks don’t allow this. In a way, long term geologic storage is exactly this. Drill holes in the ground, stuff the spent fuel inside, cap the hole. You can do that far easier, but it’s legally not allowed because people like greenpeace (and you) think radiation is magically dangerous.
And nuclear is hard and expensive to build.
There is not a single reason someone to build reactors,
There are 62 nuclear plants in china right now, most from the past 10 years, and there are 34 being built now, with 150 planned. They are basically disproving every “Expensive and slow” stereotype, simply by doing what nuclear proponents have been saying since the 50’s: “Build more, and it’ll get cheaper”. It’s the exact same way solar, wind and batteries are getting cheaper. China builds nuclear because it hugely improves air quality, because the alternative is coal.
We used to be able to build nuclear plants quickly and affordably in the west too, but eeeeeveryone stopped doing it when chernobyl happened, which was basically specifically built to explode.
Hahaha nuclear has basically no co2 output so its not bad for the climate
Dont even need to read further.
Lead is also not bad for your health, because it doesn’t contain cyanide - same level of arguing
Things that produce co2 in large amounts are bad for the environment and need to be abandoned, no question, but that doesn’t mean everything which doesn’t produce co2 is good for the environment lol
Because I don’t waste my time (well, much) on trolls, I had AI provide a response in the tone I would have used. I’m sure you’ll AI is BS yada yada but meh. I thought it was good.
Your post is peak “I read a Vox article from 2015 and now I’m an expert” energy.
• Nuclear is not “shit.” It’s the only proven, scalable, carbon-free baseload power we have.
• The problem isn’t nuclear—it’s Western governments treating it like a political football instead of an industrial project.
• If you think coal is bad but nuclear is worse, you’re objectively wrong. Coal kills 8 million people/year from air pollution. Nuclear has killed ~5,000 in 70 years (Chernobyl + Fukushima, mostly from Soviet incompetence and a tsunami).
• Your “no profitable plants” claim is like saying “no Tesla has ever been profitable”—ignoring that the Model 3/Y now print money, and existing reactors are cash machines.
Final Verdict: Your Take is Hot Garbage
• Accuracy Rating: 2/10 (generous).
• Spice Level: 8/10 (points for passion, but you’re swinging at shadows).
• Reality Check: Nuclear is the most cost-effective low-carbon power source if you build it right. The West doesn’t, but that’s our failure, not the tech’s.
Now go shove that up your reactor pressure vessel. 🔥
Bruh i saw this trash of a bait post yesterday already.
Nobody with more than 3 brain cells is defending coal. But Nuclear is also shit (unless u have subs to run or nukes to build, and hence can use civil nuclear plants, refining, and mining to offload some of the military bill onto the backs of civilians).
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SINGLE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT THAT WAS PROFITABLE THUOUT ITS WHOLE LIFE CIRCLE.
Take your god damn bait meme and shove it up your reactor pressure vessel.
What’s profit got to do with it?
Because people call nuclear cheap, when it in reality isnt, they just cherry pick a smol time slot while ignoring states pumping money into it before and after main run time.
Nuclear is dirt cheap if you level the playing field and also make all other sources pay to store waste eternally. The damage caused by climate change is ranging into the trillions, but no other fossil fuel pays for it.
Only nuclear power is expected to nearly package their waste, everyone else gets to spread it around the entire planet, slowly killing every living species.
ah yeah tell me more how neat uranium mines are cleaned up and how they not spread radioactive dust over the landscape. tell me more about how solar pannels cant be recycled and have to be watched for millions of years so nobody touches em
Nobody is saying we should build coal plant instead of nuclear, that’s the strawman. Every godamm nuclear defender always uses.
“but there are worse energy sources”
Yes we fckin know, doesn’t make your energy good.
Keep you strawman false arguments to yourself until nuclear has less cost and less contamination then renewables (forever).
1 - stop being so angry.
2 - Nuclear and renewables are the way to go. Renewables are the bicycles of energy, cheap, clean, easily to make and you can put em anywhere. But sometimes a bike won’t work. Nuclear are the trains, expensive to build and requiring lots of effort… but without trains, people will drive cars every time a bike won’t work.
If you oppose Nuclear, you’re promoting coal. If you oppose solar, you’re promoting coal.
1 if we stop debating the same dumb ideas for centuries maybe my anger will fade
2 I really hope you are ragebaiting, comparing nuclear to trains is sooo out there. A train is good for the climate, good for socioeconomic fairness (cheap), easy to build, easy to change and has basically no waste at all. Nuclear is bad for the climate, has the worst waste humanity can produce, is socioeconomically bad for everyone near the waste or working in the mines under inhumane coditions, the waste will last longer than the oldest human made structure, we do not have the tools to plan for that kind of timespan AT ALL, everyone saying he can build structures safe for that time is lying or mislead. And nuclear is hard and expensive to build.
No, we dont need nuclear, no matter what your personal experience with bicycles is. No, opposing nuclear is not promoting coal, dunno who told you this, but its wrong. Renewables are the way to go. We already have ways to store renewable energy, and we have just started researching it there is a lot more to come, fission is basically optimized and still way worse. Even in unicorn situations where our storage is not sufficient there are better alternatives than nuclear, bio-gas for example.
The only reason someone would want nuclear is to offload costs of building bombs and submarines to the public otherwise needed to be played for by military budget.
There is not a single reason someone to build reactors, especially not trains and bikes.
Nuclear has basically no CO2 output, so that’s wrong.
There’s one super simple method. We just don’t use it, because it flies in the face of regular waste disposal and remediation methods: Grind up the waste, pour it in concrete pellets, mix it with the mining tailings and chuck it back into the hole you found it. You’re basically restoring the status quo if you do that. The only reason we don’t do this is because legal frameworks don’t allow this. In a way, long term geologic storage is exactly this. Drill holes in the ground, stuff the spent fuel inside, cap the hole. You can do that far easier, but it’s legally not allowed because people like greenpeace (and you) think radiation is magically dangerous.
There are 62 nuclear plants in china right now, most from the past 10 years, and there are 34 being built now, with 150 planned. They are basically disproving every “Expensive and slow” stereotype, simply by doing what nuclear proponents have been saying since the 50’s: “Build more, and it’ll get cheaper”. It’s the exact same way solar, wind and batteries are getting cheaper. China builds nuclear because it hugely improves air quality, because the alternative is coal.
We used to be able to build nuclear plants quickly and affordably in the west too, but eeeeeveryone stopped doing it when chernobyl happened, which was basically specifically built to explode.
Hahaha nuclear has basically no co2 output so its not bad for the climate Dont even need to read further.
Lead is also not bad for your health, because it doesn’t contain cyanide - same level of arguing
Things that produce co2 in large amounts are bad for the environment and need to be abandoned, no question, but that doesn’t mean everything which doesn’t produce co2 is good for the environment lol
I used to live near a city that got nuclear power. When the plant closed our costs rose 200-300%.
I don’t care if it’s profitable, it’s cheap as fuck for residents.
“i dont care about anyhting but my own time slot” attitude
Because I don’t waste my time (well, much) on trolls, I had AI provide a response in the tone I would have used. I’m sure you’ll AI is BS yada yada but meh. I thought it was good.
Your post is peak “I read a Vox article from 2015 and now I’m an expert” energy. • Nuclear is not “shit.” It’s the only proven, scalable, carbon-free baseload power we have. • The problem isn’t nuclear—it’s Western governments treating it like a political football instead of an industrial project. • If you think coal is bad but nuclear is worse, you’re objectively wrong. Coal kills 8 million people/year from air pollution. Nuclear has killed ~5,000 in 70 years (Chernobyl + Fukushima, mostly from Soviet incompetence and a tsunami). • Your “no profitable plants” claim is like saying “no Tesla has ever been profitable”—ignoring that the Model 3/Y now print money, and existing reactors are cash machines. Final Verdict: Your Take is Hot Garbage • Accuracy Rating: 2/10 (generous). • Spice Level: 8/10 (points for passion, but you’re swinging at shadows). • Reality Check: Nuclear is the most cost-effective low-carbon power source if you build it right. The West doesn’t, but that’s our failure, not the tech’s. Now go shove that up your reactor pressure vessel. 🔥
Edit: AI is the new nuclear power lololol
“I had AI provide a response”
i stopped reading right there, dont waste my time.
The fuck you didn’t 🤣