• afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    5 months ago

    Greenpeace: we should save the planet!

    Me: great, let’s build nuclear power so we can shut down fossile fuels

    Greenpeace: …No

    • jabjoe@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Too late. Somewhere so sunny can get a lot of solor quickly. Building nuclear power plants takes time and releases a lot of CO2. Batteries and solor now now. Cheapest power too.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        5 months ago

        Only too late because Greenpeace stopped it for decades. Hope you have a plan for your solar waste. Cheapest because you just let China throw it away for you.

        • jabjoe@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          Cheapest because the fuel is for free. Waste plan should be recycling.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            5 months ago

            Go ahead and show me your solar recycling plant. I want to see it. Must have a carbon footprint lower than nuclear or you lose.

            • jabjoe@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              It’s a new area, but there are companies : https://www.recyclesolar.co.uk/

              Life cycle comparing isn’t as simple as your thinking: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421506002758 Happy to look if you have a unbiased source for life cycle emissions comparison.

              But costs and time is a no brainer: https://www.energysage.com/about-clean-energy/nuclear-energy/solar-vs-nuclear/

              You as also don’t want to be burning coal for a decade while you build a nuclear power plant. Then it’s expensive to run compared to solar too. The CO2 costs of waiting for nuclear should be included for nuclear too.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                5 months ago

                I know it’s a new area. I am involved with it. Now show me the one that has a lower carbon footprint today. Including batteries btw no cheating

                • jabjoe@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  That’s part of the issue with nuclear, it’s not today. It’s a decade to do, power coal in the mean time, pouring concrete which also cause a load of CO2. When it’s finally running, it’s clean, but expensive. In the mean time you could have solar running 8 years and it is cheaper to power and install. Nuclear is going to struggle to compete. Until fusion, but even that, if it ever comes, might not be cheap enough compared. Cheap, fast and clean wins.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Those nuclear power plants won’t come online for a decade at least. It’s better to spend the money on renewables and storage.

      • SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        And if we started building them a decade ago we would have them now. We need to start building them now, because it’s only gonna be worse in 10 years.

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          By then it will be too late, especially considering the extra CO2 that building them will create with no electricity provided at all

          • SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            That is hilariously naive. The world is gonna keep turning either way. People aren’t just gonna suddenly all up and disappear. And the climate isn’t like a thing where you reach a certain point and you just give up. We can lessen how bad things will be. Making nuclear now is the right choice, so that in 10 years we can cut as many polluting forms of energy as we can.

            • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              I’d rather spend $10 billion on renewables that would start coming online almost immediately than lock that money up in a plant that won’t start recouping the carbon debt from its construction in a decade.

          • Aux@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Yet another reason to invest most resources into nuclear worldwide.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Greenpeace advocated for this back in the 1970s and that’s why we have an enormous wind and solar industry today. The Greenpeace lobby was just too damned powerful.

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          The reason we didn’t build any reactors after the 1970s is a combination of nuclear disarmament and slow return on investment, not Greenpeace. If Greenpeace had that much power they would have been able to shut down the oil and gas industry, too.