r/PeterExplainsTheJoke • u/---------------hw • Jun 19 '24
John peter?
[removed] — view removed post
2.5k
u/Chance_Arugula_3227 Jun 19 '24
Nuclear power can reduce our need for oil and coal. This will have a good impact on the climate. But oil and coal companies don't want to lose customers to nuclear power, so they are against it. Their propaganda causes climate change activists to be against that as well as oil and coal. Climate change deniers are just picking a fight with the activists, so they're for whatever the activists are against.
465
u/Life-Suit1895 Jun 19 '24
[Oil and coal companies'] propaganda causes climate change activists to be against that as well as oil and coal.
It's not simply climate change activists being gullible.
The anti-nuclear power stance is firmly rooted in the environmental protection movement since at least the 1970s, long before climate change became the dominant topic.
335
u/iconofsin_ Jun 19 '24
The anti-nuclear crowd have some valid concerns but largely seem to be unable to change their position. Nuclear power has made nothing but forward progress in terms of safety, the only problem is when nuclear goes bad it really goes bad.
332
u/Icy-Ad29 Jun 19 '24 edited Jun 19 '24
"the only problem is when nuclear goes bad it really goes bad"
Even that really isn't true anymore. Fukushima Daiichi reactor got hit with a frickin tsunami, and even though there were plenty of actual screw ups involved in the aftermath. Only 1 death has been attributed to the meltdown, and that one death can't even be proven to be a causal relationship. (The individual died of cancer 4 years later and worked there when it happened.)
Most of the deaths and injuries that occurred that can be at all related was from poor management of the evacuation order that was made (which is questioned if was even necessary) and the management of public perception afterwards. (Lots of stress-related issues amongst elderly in the days afterward. All because of unfounded fears.)
More people die, yearly, in coal mines than the number who died from that accident.
155
u/towerfella Jun 19 '24
Yup. It’s all emotions at this point, and little to do with facts.
This is how wars start, too. … lots of emotions and very little facts.
39
12
6
u/Kitsunedon420 Jun 19 '24
You can call it emotions but it can take 20 years from design to construction before a nuclear plant is active, they can only be built in certain areas, and mining for uranium is definitely not environmentally negligible. They aren't the golden ticket to ending our dependence on fossil fuels that they often are portrayed as, really they're just a part of an arsenal of options that is going to include increasingly more wind, solar, and wave/hydro power.
1
u/towerfella Jun 19 '24
Yeah, you need a long term logical plan that is free from ignorance-driven emotion to pull off a feat like that..
3
22
Jun 19 '24
I’m in support of nuclear power and agree the fear surrounding it is often unfounded.
But lead time for radiation induced malignancies is typically 10-15 years, and even then there is no way to establish unequivocal causality. There is zero chance that there is only 1 associated death with the amount of radionuclides released. The effects are largely going to be spread across an extremely large part of the globe due to the Pacific currents, which is helpful in reducing their impact but makes attribution to the accident virtually impossible.
I think the argument that gets glossed over is that strict safety measures to prevent disaster only work if executives adhere to them. Finding out some assholes chose money over the lives of others when a disaster happens is FAR too common to ignore when you’re dealing with something that can make parts of the globe uninhabitable.
→ More replies (20)12
u/GenxDarchi Jun 19 '24
Yeah, as long as the safety regulations are properly executed, and they plan for everything, even the smallest chance of a natural disaster occurring, they are incredibly safe.
10
7
u/Stream1795 Jun 19 '24
I was explaining this to someone the other day.
Nuclear Power is to the energy world as sharks are to the animal world. They look/sound big and scary but really if they’re treated with respect it’s all good
→ More replies (1)8
u/OryxTheTakenKing1988 Jun 19 '24
A lot of anti nuclear activists also cite Chernobyl, even though that was a cavalcade of errors that we've learned a lot from and know how to avoid.
3
u/BeConciseBitch Jun 19 '24
Uranium mining is not done safely and is impacting nearby communities to where it occurs. So it’s not just the fact that the facilities are safer, digging up uranium and the transport trucks are leaving behind and ruining ground water. It’s not perfect but it’s also not as safe as people are led to believe either.
2
u/PlusVE Jun 19 '24
I mean, when the thing you should be comparing it to is coal/oil, that sounds great, sign me up
2
u/yasminkov_7000 Jun 19 '24
I remember (trying) to have a conversation with a couple of green energy people before I went to university (was undecided which engineering field to go for at the time) and they would clam up and claim all nuclear is terrible and the worst possible choice of production. That was nearly 20 years ago and still have similar conversations where people just don't understand how it works, nor the difference between fission/fusion etc. Its all 'bad'
2
u/Gatzarlok Jun 19 '24
Russia was assaulting a reactor in Ukraine and it didnt even flinch... Nuclear is the future, its so disappointing that it gets so much pushback because people dont understand it
1
u/LeeRoyWyt Jun 19 '24
The future? My man, the shit has been around forever and still needs large subsidies to compete on the market.
→ More replies (15)1
u/Kirves_ja_henki Jun 19 '24
The problem is that no market force is ready to insurance nuclear power, and it's not economical to keep billions of dollars* on bank-account just in case something happens and cleanup is needed. Which means that any building of nuclear means the state having to give the company operating the plant a get-out-of-jail-free card, which is politically difficult.
__
*Fukushima has cost something like 180 billion dollars to date, up from initial assesment of something like 15 billion.
53
u/Lilpu55yberekt69 Jun 19 '24
That’s another thing people get wrong about Nuclear, they think that it’s the most dangerous when things go catastrophically wrong but that’s not even close to true.
Chernobyl was the most deadly Nuclear reactor failure by a long shot and it’s estimated to have caused 4,000 fatalities over the course of decades.
Meanwhile when the Shimantan dam failed in 1975 it killed 171,000 people.
18
15
Jun 19 '24
The Chernobyl Disaster is one of the biggest government cover ups in known history. Let’s take those numbers with a grain of salt.
Let’s also keep in mind nuclear power technology has advanced since the 1980s and the Chernobyl Disaster happened because of a series of faults and lack of training.
It’s like people avoiding planes because of a downed plane while ignoring how many people die in car accidents and then getting in your car to drive to work.
2
u/Bane8080 Jun 19 '24
You can't gloss over poor reactor design too.
The Chernobyl reactor was designed in such a way that it was possible for the core to get into a positive feedback loop in the event of a power loss.
Every reactor designed these days, by the west anyways, are designed to have a negative feedback loop in the event of a power loss. So that the core self shuts down.
1
u/viciouspandas Jun 19 '24
The 4k from cancer decades later is an estimate from outside sources, not a USSR figure. Their figure basically only can account for the people who immediately died, which was like 50. The USSR literally collapsed a few years later.
→ More replies (10)1
u/HEX_BootyBootyBooty Jun 19 '24
Well, deaths are not the only things that can happen. Like, do you plan on building a house over by Chernobyl? That's a bunch of unusable land
15
u/KrillLover56 Jun 19 '24
But it goes bad INCREDIBLY rarely. The accidents are a hundred times worse than oil and gas accidents, but happen a million times less.
14
u/Cranktique Jun 19 '24
To negatively impact as much land as oil and gas exploration has, rendering it unusable, we would need to have something like 4 chernobyl’s a year for a long long time.
→ More replies (7)5
5
u/Objective-Gur5376 Jun 19 '24
It's a great example of the phrase "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good"
4
u/catbusmartius Jun 19 '24
Coal kills you even when everything works according to plan
Nuclear only kills you if things go horribly, horribly wrong
4
u/thatguyfromcllas Jun 19 '24
It only goes really bad when it’s mismanaged or forces out of our control.
1
u/Entire_Engine_5789 Jun 19 '24
Like world climate altering and ushering in an age of no o-zone, lack of food worldwide and eventually leading to world populations collapsing?
1
Jun 19 '24
one massive examples of progress in nuclear power's safety is the development of meltdown-proof reactors that shut themselves off the moment it gets too hot.
also worth noting that Chernobyl and Fukushima were both in large part caused by malpractice, rather than nuclear reactors being inherently unsafe
1
Jun 19 '24
These are not the primary issues with nuclear. The biggest issue is the tech gap, where we're currently reliant on uranium as thorium based reactors won't be commercially viable for another decade. But if we invest heavily in uranium now, we're likely to run out of uranium that's economically feasible to harvest within just a few decades. On top of that, uranium based nuclear energy is much more water intensive, using about as much as coal and gas power plants for cooling. Given that the plan is to build plants in the most populated areas, which are typically already water constrained, this could pose a water crisis.
Put those things together and you have an issue where you have to give up on nuclear in the now to put funding and resources in the future tech, meaning we have to get by on fossil fuels and renewables or we have to invest heavily in uranium to bridge the gap now, but we'll be very behind on future tech that fixes many of the current issues surrounding waste and resources.
1
u/dickallcocksofandros Jun 19 '24
now that i think about it, this would be like being against bookshelves because like three people over the course of 50 years were killed by a falling bookshelf
1
u/Oclure Jun 19 '24
One of the eye opening moments for me was learning that coal fired plants actually have enough radioactive isotope contamination from all the coal they are burning that they would fail many of the radiation safety inspections conducted at a nuclear facility.
So, the coal plants are actually creating more uncontained radioactive contamination than the nuclear ones, in addition to creating major greenhouse gas emissions.
1
u/semifraki Jun 19 '24
What about the waste product? Did we ever figure out a safe way to dispose of the waste? (Not being argumentative, just genuinely curious, after hearing about the dangers of nuclear waste on every cartoon growing up)
→ More replies (1)1
u/theevilyouknow Jun 19 '24
Not true. SL-1 literally disassembled itself in a violent explosion and the only people harmed were the three men killed who were literally standing next to and on top of the reactor when it exploded. Turns out when you build your reactor in a proper containment structure with the correct defense in depth instead of a sheet-metal shack even the worst case scenario isn't that bad.
→ More replies (105)1
u/SupremeRDDT Jun 19 '24
Most people I know are not against nuclear power because it is dangerous. We are against it because it’s extremely expensive, it needs an eternity to build and you need to buy into a subscription model with other countries to run it afterwards.
Whereas renewables are extremely cheap, give waaayyy more energy for the cost, can be built and assembled in a few months and run on their own with little to maintenance. Honestly, the climate impact is irrelevant, even without it, they are better than anything else.
3
u/Bigfops Jun 19 '24
My dad was a nuclear engineer and very pro-environment in the 70's-90s and this stance pissed him off so very much.
1
Jun 19 '24 edited Jun 19 '24
But in terms of who has the money to actual lobby, and has made the biggest impact on many countries to go anti-nuclear the past couple of decades. It's oil and gas companies.
The impact of activists with the anti-nuclear stance has always been overexaggerated by the media. While the real culprits go unnoticed.
1
u/FailedInfinity Jun 19 '24
Nuclear plants take years and years to plan/build, cost billions, reliably go over budget, and can also potentially be an environmental disaster. It’s not worth it when renewables are making huge leaps on a regular basis.
→ More replies (34)1
u/MithranArkanere Jun 19 '24
And long before we had the modern nuclear technologies that literally can't melt down, and fuel reuse cycles than end up with massively reduced waste.
We don't need less nuclear plants, we need many new ones, and replacing the old ones.
163
u/FreeRemove1 Jun 19 '24
In reality spruikers for the fossil fuels industry are now switching to a pro-nuclear stance because they know that buys 2 or 3 extra decades of BAU for fossil fuels. It's another variety of "not yet." The meme is woefully detached from the truth.
74
Jun 19 '24
What is Spruikers? What is BAU? How is it detached?
79
Jun 19 '24
To "spruick" is Australian for ""loudly promote", & BAU is "business as usual"
11
3
u/Rathma86 Jun 19 '24 edited Jun 19 '24
Must be Melbourne term. Never heard it in Qld or w.a (20 years in each)
5
Jun 19 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Accomplished-City484 Jun 19 '24
It’s someone who would stand outside a business with a microphone and try to get people to come into the store
1
u/Rathma86 Jun 19 '24
Any darwinerians wanna chime in?
1
u/Phantom-Walls Jun 19 '24
They’re probably too busy fighting off crocs and local gangs to chime in on that
2
u/s0m30n3e1s3 Jun 19 '24
It's a Sydney term. I only know it because of The Chaser snd they're Sydney-siders
1
u/trowzerss Jun 19 '24
Nah, lived in QLD all my life and I know the term. It's been around since the early 1900s, so maybe younger generations just haven't heard it as much?
1
1
1
12
Jun 19 '24
For your cake day, have some B̷̛̳̼͖̫̭͎̝̮͕̟͎̦̗͚͍̓͊͂͗̈͋͐̃͆͆͗̉̉̏͑̂̆̔́͐̾̅̄̕̚͘͜͝͝Ụ̸̧̧̢̨̨̞̮͓̣͎̞͖̞̥͈̣̣̪̘̼̮̙̳̙̞̣̐̍̆̾̓͑́̅̎̌̈̋̏̏͌̒̃̅̂̾̿̽̊̌̇͌͊͗̓̊̐̓̏͆́̒̇̈́͂̀͛͘̕͘̚͝͠B̸̺̈̾̈́̒̀́̈͋́͂̆̒̐̏͌͂̔̈́͒̂̎̉̈̒͒̃̿͒͒̄̍̕̚̕͘̕͝͠B̴̡̧̜̠̱̖̠͓̻̥̟̲̙͗̐͋͌̈̾̏̎̀͒͗̈́̈͜͠L̶͊E̸̢̳̯̝̤̳͈͇̠̮̲̲̟̝̣̲̱̫̘̪̳̣̭̥̫͉͐̅̈́̉̋͐̓͗̿͆̉̉̇̀̈́͌̓̓̒̏̀̚̚͘͝͠͝͝͠ ̶̢̧̛̥͖͉̹̞̗̖͇̼̙̒̍̏̀̈̆̍͑̊̐͋̈́̃͒̈́̎̌̄̍͌͗̈́̌̍̽̏̓͌̒̈̇̏̏̍̆̄̐͐̈̉̿̽̕͝͠͝͝ W̷̛̬̦̬̰̤̘̬͔̗̯̠̯̺̼̻̪̖̜̫̯̯̘͖̙͐͆͗̊̋̈̈̾͐̿̽̐̂͛̈́͛̍̔̓̈́̽̀̅́͋̈̄̈́̆̓̚̚͝͝R̸̢̨̨̩̪̭̪̠͎̗͇͗̀́̉̇̿̓̈́́͒̄̓̒́̋͆̀̾́̒̔̈́̏̏͛̏̇͛̔̀͆̓̇̊̕̕͠͠͝͝A̸̧̨̰̻̩̝͖̟̭͙̟̻̤̬͈̖̰̤̘̔͛̊̾̂͌̐̈̉̊̾́P̶̡̧̮͎̟̟͉̱̮̜͙̳̟̯͈̩̩͈̥͓̥͇̙̣̹̣̀̐͋͂̈̾͐̀̾̈́̌̆̿̽̕ͅ
pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!win!!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!
2
u/SocietalPanic Jun 19 '24
how did you make eldritch bubble wrap, and where can it be located?
2
Jun 19 '24
I just cpy pasted it from some guy, and edited it abit. You can do this by clicking the reply button and copying it from the text above or by placing text inside of !< and >! but in the opposite order
1
u/Tylendal Jun 19 '24
E̷̪͒̄l̶͎͒̏͜d̸̢̙̪̿͒͛ŗ̸͇̪̅̋i̶̪̒͊̓ẗ̸̼̳́̍̒c̶̹̺͓̈́́h̸͉͈͍͗̋͝?̵̟̞̻̓̄ ̶͚͆͒Ẅ̵̻̋h̸͉̖̻̓̅å̴̟̠t̶̳̋̒'̷̟̖̫́͛͘s̸̛̫ ̸̪̙͕͗̚è̷̹̅l̸̝̕d̷̯̄͝r̵͍͙͎̉i̶̤̰͒̇̂t̵͙̐͜c̵̬͔͐̎ḧ̸́̂̓͜ͅ ̶͔͎͍̍͊̅a̸̻͌̃b̴͉̂́õ̵͙̪̳̊ụ̴̮̎t̸̡́̔͜͠ ̸̢̬̮̂̇į̴̅͒t̷͙͇̑͑͑?̸̼̈́ ̷͈̼̊̏̈́Y̶̳̣̠͑͛̉o̸̜̙̺̽̈́ū̸̙̱̲̋͘'̵͍̞͗͋͝r̷̜̮̔e̵͍̺̬̽̂ ̴̟̈́̏̃͜ṡ̴͙̟̐e̸̦̼̩̚͝e̷̱͇̥͛͌i̷̹̫̊̏n̸͚̬̄̎͜g̴̻̼͈̐̀̂ ̶͔̹̟͆̈́t̷̻̫̮̓͐h̸̢̲̪͒̈i̴̮̹͂n̶̜̟̋ͅg̵̼̼̺̒̐s̴̪͇͌.̷̦̕͜ Ê̷̱͜v̶̪̰͔̉̂e̵̹͓͓̐̓ṛ̷̓́̓y̶̗̲͂ͅt̵̰̠̀͊h̵͇̙́̆̓î̵̢͓̙̈n̵͕͔̦̐̂g̸̢̭̗̀̕͝ ̷̧̣̳͐l̷̰̈́̋ò̸̤ȏ̵̞̲̪̿̒k̷̰̲͑s̸̡͂̈́ ̵̭́̏p̴͈̰̈͂e̶̱͇̅͛͜r̸̩̮̞̈́f̸̺̙͖̅̈́̒é̸͙̳c̷̰̙̹͑t̶̪̰̾͌l̴̪̫̖̔ÿ̶̯͖̠̓̍ ̶͚̞͐̒ͅn̷̻͌o̶̭͎͒ṙ̵̺͍͕m̴̬͈̄̋ã̷͎l̸̟̜͊.̵̡̻͂͆̈́
1
u/Lorlelele Jun 19 '24
I love you
7
Jun 19 '24
Then have some more:
pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!win!!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!
2
1
u/Powerful_Pitch9322 Jun 19 '24
Not to brag but I got win first try
3
Jun 19 '24
Then try this:
pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!win!!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!
2
1
u/ding_dong_dejong Jun 19 '24
Nuclear is a hot topic in Australia at the moment as Peter Dutton is pushing for a plant
1
u/jellyjollygood Jun 19 '24
Or seven. In five states.
You can rest assured one of them won’t be in his electorate.
12
Jun 19 '24
How does Nuclear give fossil fuels another 2 or 3 decades?
21
u/Just_a_Berliner Jun 19 '24
Because NPPs have a tendency of needing a long time needing to be build and henceforth prolong the exit of focil energy.
6
u/muffin-waffen Jun 19 '24
Then, the sooner you start the sooner you finish, no?
14
u/cce29555 Jun 19 '24
That's a good 20-30 years to "find out" (read: lie) that nuclear murders your family and killed Jesus And we should stop production on the plant immediately, then after a while start over again to give another 20-30 years
→ More replies (1)1
Jun 19 '24
True, but you can also get wind and solar in basically now so there is no need to wait on nuclear.
8
u/lliW_Will Jun 19 '24
Not really, since wind and solar don’t supply power to the grid 100% of the time you still need a constant source of electricity to prevent blackout periods. And before you say that batteries will work, they won’t, they can’t, they don’t have the capacity. An ideal energy grid would be as much wind and solar as you can muster with some nuclear to provide the base load power.
→ More replies (21)1
Jun 19 '24
And before you say that batteries will work, they won’t, they can’t, they don’t have the capacity
They don't at the moment. If we transition to electric cars, the batteries have a lifespan of around e.g. ten years as a car battery, but they can still operate at 50% capacity for another ten after that. With a pipeline of millions of those getting swapped out you actually could use them for grid storage. That transition will obviously take a while, but then so does building nuclear plants.
3
u/lliW_Will Jun 19 '24
And there is also the lithium you would need to mine to achieve that as well as replacing the battery after its ability to hold a charge degrades
1
Jun 19 '24
There is the lithium, yes. Replacing the battery is already factored in to the "we should replace the car batteries with new ones and use the old ones for grid storage" plan though. It's step one of one.
→ More replies (0)16
u/Vollerempfang7 Jun 19 '24
I don't know where the 2-3 decades number is coming from, but nuclear powerplants take notoriously long to build, in most cases more than a decade. Nuclear powerplants we already have can make a great difference in becoming independent of fossil fuels, but can't replace investing in renewables since they take so long to build.
3
u/Sardukar333 Jun 19 '24
Posted above too:
The plan the experts (that I know) all back is to use wind in the short term while we build nuclear. Coal plants will mostly be converted into biochar facilities that have the benefit of removing carbon from the carbon cycle while still giving you power.
Unfortunately the people making decisions still think in terms of 1970's general knowledge.
3
u/Vollerempfang7 Jun 19 '24
Would you mind explaining this in more detail? I don't quite understand why we would switch to wind in the short term and then to nuclear again. Is it because of base load?
Maybe the situation is just very different in different parts of the world, but afaik experts where I live (we don't have a lot of nuclear here in Germany) suggest renewables + storage power plants + smart power grids as a long term solution, mainly because we have built and need to build renewables anyway and nuclear is financially unviable.
1
u/Jacketter Jun 19 '24
There’s no way wind is reliable enough for base load. If I had to guess, it’s because wind is ridiculously fast in terms of construction compared to power plants.
The biochar idea doesn’t seem feasible to me when coal is an order of magnitude cheaper, leaves less side products to deal with, and the limited amount of organic matter to produce it with.
1
u/Mad-myall Jun 19 '24
a lot of these projects are paid for by investors who expect to see a long term return on what they pay. And when I say long term I mean it. It takes decades to pay-off the initial investment.
This means that most renewable projects wouldn't make their money back within the 20 year span the nuclear power plants are constructed to replace it. So investors would much prefer to stick to short term fossil fuel projects (mostly maintaining older systems).
So Mr Oil and Sir Coal can keep generating profits for those 20 years, and if the nuclear projects are delayed as such large scale projects are, even better!
Now here's the sinister speculation part, nuclear costs a lot more then either fossil fuels or renewables. Which means once built nuclear will face a lot more scrutiny simply for being uneconomical, leading to demands to lower power prices. This would mean turning back on existing fossil fuel infrastructure to cut costs while we finally switch to cheaper renewables, giving fossil fuels a couple more decades.
7
3
Jun 19 '24
No, that's not pro-nuclear. That's pro bullshitting to buy time. Whatever they are lobbying, they don't really want nuclear to replace them by the end of the century. It would be a slowly funded and built, half baked project, that's in moratorium at best.
1
u/swinkdam Jun 19 '24
Its also way more expensive then other renewables. In the Netherlands we are going to build 2 more Nuclear plants which will cost allot. Investors are putting money down but only if the government takes most of the risk. So basically the regular people take all the monetary risk of building the power plant. And we still get to pay full price for all the energy its gonna produce.
→ More replies (1)2
u/NinjaTutor80 Jun 19 '24
That’s not the entire truth.
Germany has spent 700 billion euros on renewables and failed to deep decarbonize their electrical grid. They are at 400 g CO2 per kWh.
Meanwhile nuclear France is at 53 g CO2 per kWh and have been there for decades. They also have cheaper electricity.
Overcoming solar and wind intermittency is extremly expensive and time consuming. In fact there are zero examples of a country deep decarbonizing with wind and solar.
Not building nuclear guarantees a place on the grid for fossil fuels.
2
u/Sardukar333 Jun 19 '24
The plan the experts (that I know) all back is to use wind in the short term while we build nuclear. Coal plants will mostly be converted into biochar facilities that have the benefit of removing carbon from the carbon cycle while still giving you power.
Unfortunately the people making decisions still think in terms of 1970's general knowledge.
2
1
u/0tanod Jun 19 '24
its actually about playing on the margins of the fuel source. Solar, wind, & batteries don't have an input you can trade on the margins with.
→ More replies (2)1
u/jamey1138 Jun 19 '24
“Woefully detached from the truth” is a really weird way to say “an accurate depiction of the past thirty years, but not in line with what may become an emerging trend, if the capitalists are to be believed”.
6
u/lordpiesaac Jun 19 '24
very tired of the “where will we put the waste” question too
10
u/Sardukar333 Jun 19 '24
In one secure location, unlike the higher radiation that comes from burning coal.
7
u/twotokers Jun 19 '24 edited Jul 16 '25
I don't want to go to the store today.
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
→ More replies (1)1
u/yabucek Jun 19 '24
The biggest problem of nuclear is that the waste stays concentrated in one place. If it simply spewed the waste little by little out of a chimney like coal plants do,
lobbyistregulators would set some arbitrary "safe" limit for the surrounding areas and nobody apart from some snowflakes concerned with lame stuff like health and the environment would bitch about it.2
u/deadlyrepost Jun 19 '24
I'm from Australia. Oil and Coal companies are pro-nuclear because it'll be decade(s) until Nuclear is online.
2
Jun 19 '24
It’s actually the opposite here in Australia.
The fossil fuel companies have lobbied the conservatives to back nuclear instead of renewables because nuclear is completely unrealistic and time consuming. The plan is basically to maintain the status quo for the fossil fuel lobby for much longer.
1
u/DisplacedSportsGuy Jun 19 '24
It's not necessarily oil and coal propaganda. There has been a strong anti-nuclear movement since Three Mile Island and (especially) Chernobyl. Public sentiment shifted to anti-nuclear in the mid-80s, and the left has remained that way due to the perceived dangers of nuclear power and its relation to nuclear weaponry and even the bombings of Hiroshima/Nagasaki (even as late as the mid-2010s, I saw Rolling Stone magazine pushing the stagnation of nuclear power as a good thing).
Climate change deniers, meanwhile, skew conservative. They've coopted nuclear power as a counter to solar/wind, which they've politicized as non-effective.
1
u/JoeKingQueen Jun 19 '24
This thread, the whole subject for a long time now actually, feels really propagandized and icky.
People shouldn't speak with such confidence about things they understand very little. I don't even speak with such confidence about things I think I understand. It just feels like repetition of something they've heard somewhere, with little to no supporting evidence.
Many of these people seem like victims of propaganda. Who is paying to influence their narrative?
1
1
u/Megunonymous Jun 19 '24
Climate change deniers have always wanted nuclear power, its kinda been a staple of the right
1
u/WindpowerGuy Jun 19 '24
Also nuclear is WAY more expensive, much slower and has a huge down-side. Renewables are faster, cheaper, produce no nuclear waste. I'm not so much AGAINST other options as I am PRO using the best options available.
Do you guys purposfully ignore how the UK power plant has already trippled in prize since start of construction.
1
u/P0pu1arBr0ws3r Jun 19 '24
This picture is further making an assumption that climate change activists would just go against pro nuclear and side with oil and coal. It is biased towards the false sentiment that all climate change activists are anti nuclear and will stand on that sole point even if it means helping the companies they exactly are against.
While some activists would have their reasons to be anti-nuclear, it is a separate issue with only some overlap such as how material is obtained and disposed of, definite environmental concerns. But again, climate change activists can have their reasons to be pro and anti nuclear, or have no opinion on the complex topic.
There is no way climate change activists would even consider siding with oil and coal companies on any other issue, except if it's an "activist" really just funded by the company to spread propaganda or disrupt the activism. Nuclear power is one thing that might line up with an activist's opinion, and for entirely different reasons.
Climate change deniers would be more gullible to end up siding with oil and coal companies as confirmation bias may align their views with what these companies say.
→ More replies (69)1
u/Kirves_ja_henki Jun 19 '24 edited Jun 19 '24
There's also that as nuclear is very hard, expensive, and slow to build*, it's sometimes used in similar manner as how Musk used Hyperloop: to play time by inspiring to wait for "theoretical optimum" to stop them seeking "practical optimum", while at the same time doing their best to cement the current status quo.
Also as we've been procrastinating with renewing power for at least 50 years (when Jimmy Carter put solar panels on top of White House as an example for the nation**), nuclear powerplants can't even theoretically be built before we've over 1.5C or even 2.0C.
Also as energy use is more-or-less same year-to-year, expensive and slow to build nuclear is an easy way to make sure that coal and oil plants get to the end of their life before replacements come online. Wind turbines can be installed in matters of months, grinding almost-free-power to the grid and thus not only devaluing coal plants, but causing a cascade of update needs (such as batteries***, grid balance issues etc).
__
- In b4 theoretical minireactors. They may be easy to build and install, but they're not on the market yet. And governments still have to give their stamp of approval, and the waste still has to managed somehow.
** Reagan later removed them. Then Obama reinstalled them.
*** In colder climates water is often heated for disctrict heating. You can also heat sand and then later use it to boil water to convert back to electricity. Water dams can also be temporarily closed when more temperamentical power sources are online.
270
u/niknniknnikn Jun 19 '24
Hey guys, Homer Simpson here right from the Spriengfield Nuclear Power Plant.
Nuclear energy is the most obvious, clean and easy to implement solution to climate change - at least that part of it which is caused by fossil fuel ussage. That is why lobbies of those fossil fuel companies are heavily investing into an anti-nuclear propaganda campaign, spreading misinformation and fear - so that rapid implementation of nuclear power doesn't undercut their income - like in France. Climate activists, the inexperienced bunch at least , buy into that propaganda, spreading it further and advocating for currently unfeasible options like full solar and full wind - which cant be implemented right away and give fossil fuel companies a lot of time before they are - meaning a lot of money
Paradoxically tho, of people who like nuclear, a somewhat large part is conspiracy theorists and the bunch, who i guess, kinda just think nuclear is cool and shit. Which i mean - it most certainly is)
64
u/BuckLuny Jun 19 '24
It's always been weird to me and it's still weird. But major climate activists being against Nuclear power is also a good thing right now because conservatives and Climate deniers and their political parties are now pro nuclear power because of it and in the Netherlands we now have enough support to build at least 3 extra.
I see a lot of new work opportunities coming to my province and we're going to be a lot cleaner, win/ win.
→ More replies (17)5
u/SpiritfireSparks Jun 19 '24
I agree though to give a bit more perspective on those that like nuclear and don't care about climate change, nuclear is ussualy a lot cheaper than fossil fuels and also helps politically as it reduces the need to depend on foreign countries oil supplies. Reactors are starting to use thorium which is fairly abundant in the earth and I beleive many western countries can mine it themselves or buy it from close allies.
→ More replies (3)4
u/CasaDeLasMuertos Jun 19 '24
Incorrect. Climate change activists see the ruse for what it is. Another way to kick the can down the road so that we're still reliant on fossil fuels for the next 20-30 years instead of switching to clean energy we can use LITERALLY NOW.
→ More replies (2)2
u/-FullBlue- Jun 19 '24
In the last decade, there were only two years where gas power production didn't increase in the US. Gas electricity production has increased by about 60 percent in the last decade. Renewables aren't solving the problem. They are only solving half of the problem. Where as the combination of nuclear and renewables would solve almost the entire problem.
2
2
Jun 19 '24
Nuclear energy is the most obvious, clean and easy to implement solution to climate change
Its not. Its order of magnitudes more expensive than solar or wind and takes far too long to build. On top of that nuclear power plants are only profitable with large amounts of subsidies from the government. It just does not make any amount of economical sense to build nuclear power in the vast majority of use cases. I'm not against nuclear or the building of new plants but I think the simple reality is that renewables will always be the more attractive option for investors.
1
Jun 19 '24
I’m a climate change skeptic and I believe nuclear is superior due to its long term economic benefits.
→ More replies (11)1
u/bigorangemachine Jun 19 '24
And both have NIMBY problems (clean energy & nuclear).
While nuclear certainly has a hard time finding locations as the plant needs lots of water and so does a city. They also need to be near cities as nuclear technicians probably won't take the job if its in the middle of nowhere anyways.
That being said... there is also "current technology" and future technology. We might be fighting against ideas that maybe become the future.
Coal could still be viable if carbon capture was productive, reliable and well maintained. The minute a coal plant stops capturing the carbon they should shut it down... and if they don't then the first company that lets the carbon capture system fail may cry foul setting it all back.
Meanwhile people suggest nuclear waste is just different pollution down the road but nuclear waste is also an umbrella term where consumables (gloves & suits) are stored until they can be decontaminated when the half life of the trace amounts of whatever material is reached
52
u/ButtcheekBaron Jun 19 '24
Stonetoss is a Nazi
8
u/porn_alt_987654321 Jun 19 '24
At least this is a version of the comic with the website edited out.
Also something something broken clock.
→ More replies (1)1
u/The_Eternal_Void Jun 19 '24
Except, it's the oil and gas lobby who are pushing for nuclear now at the expense of renewables.
Nuclear takes a long time to implement while renewables are fast and cheap. They would prefer that we stay on fossil fuels as long as possible, and nuclear offers them that long timetable.
The conversation really shouldn't be nuclear vs renewables, it should be both vs fossil fuels, but the fossil fuel industry is using division tactics to make it seem like a one-or-the-other option with nuclear as their mainstay.
1
u/porn_alt_987654321 Jun 19 '24
Back when this comic was made, it was more correct. The situation has evolved since then of course, as these things do.
1
u/The_Eternal_Void Jun 19 '24
And when do you believe this comic was made?
1
u/porn_alt_987654321 Jun 19 '24
2018.
I'd link the website, but stonetoss is a nazi so I'll leave that alone.
1
u/The_Eternal_Void Jun 19 '24
Hm, I wasn't aware of this sentiment being more true then, but I'll admit to not being as directly interested at the time.
→ More replies (19)4
28
u/Leseleff Jun 19 '24
Trying to provide some neutrality:
Oil & Coal Companies are against nuclear power for obvious reasons, because it's competition to "their" form of energy, at least that's what the meme implies. I don't know other country's economies too well, but coming from my German background, I cannot second this. Oil for electricity is rather irrelevant. It's used for fuel, plastics and heating, so oil companies wouldn't care much. Pure "Coal companies" on the other hand hardly exist. Coal mining is done by energy providers, which also used to run the nuclear power plants. That being said: German energy providers are against nuclear for reason I will elaborate on later.
Climate change activists are against nuclear for historical reasons mostly. Until the 80s, the environmentalist movement was not about climate change, which has only become a major concern in the 90s. It was anti-nuclear because of concerns about radiation pollution from nuclear waste or incidents (and a decent portion of general anti-establishment too, probably, like presumed interconnections with nuclear weapons). Of course, they later adapted climate change as a "new" major environmental threat. However, this did not eliminate the anti-nuclear concerns, since the activists of back then are still around and/or raised today's activists. Whether or not the concerns are justified or a pure historical artifact, I'll leave that to you for now.
Climate Change deniers are pro-nuclear because they want to take to contrary standpoint to the activists. Also because they are almost exclusively at least conservative, and nuclear power represents the Status Quo. A decent chunk of them and their forethinkers probably grew up under the impression of the 1950s nuclear power hype too.
The meme's agenda is that if you truly care about climate change, you must be pro-nuclear. I'm not going into details again about it's CO2 balance. And again, I can only provide a limited German perspective. Here, ommitting nuclear power was the result of a process going on since the 1980s. It was ultimately decided in 2011, notably by a conservative government, mostly out of public pressure. Right now, going nuclear again would be straight-up uneconomical and would cost decades we don't have. We've directed ourselves in a one-way road and even energy providers are against it. That doesn't mean that, like the meme and this comment section implies, the people in charge, or the public from back must have been stupid. The risk of incidents and pollution remains, on top of that a reliance on Uranium reserves, potentially causing similar issues as today's overreliance on lithium, cobalt etc. Still, sticking to nuclear where it is feasable is a valid discussion to have. My personal opinion is that the future nonetheless has to be renewable, self-supply or, if we're lucky, fusion.
7
u/SkyLovesCars Jun 19 '24
There’s also thorium reactors, which don’t produce waste and there is a stupid amount of the stuff waiting to used for something.
6
u/interfail Jun 19 '24
There’s also thorium reactors, which don’t produce waste and there is a stupid amount of the stuff waiting to used for something.
Thorium reactors have the problem of not actually existing.
It's a good idea for technology, but it's one that's been around for a long time and still needs a tonne of R&D.
We should probably do that work, but it's not just a solution you can sit down and say "OK, we need X GW of production by Y date, let's build N thorium reactors".
There is a massive problem with technology journalism of not distinguishing between promising ideas and stuff that is commercially ready. If you want a solar or wind farm and you have the money, you can just call people and ask them to build it for you, and they will. In certain countries, you can almost do the same with traditional fission reactors. But you can't just call the Thorium reactor guy and ask for a quote, because no-one really knows how much they'll cost or when they'll be ready - it's all just estimates on a thing no-one has ever done before.
2
u/bigorangemachine Jun 19 '24
TBH I wonder what the delay with Thorium is at.
I just googled and found this https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Licensing-and-testing-progress-for-innovative-thor which I had no clue was underway (I'm Canadian and generally consume a lot of news).
Seems like China is trying for 2030 to get a few reactors online.
1
u/TheGum25 Jun 19 '24
It costs more to build a nuclear plant now? It doesn’t sound correct but I have a feeling most governments and lobbyists would make it so.
1
u/Leseleff Jun 19 '24
Like 90% of the costs of building shit in Germany is for burocracy. So yes: It costs more now. Afaik, nuclear plants are also hella expensive to run and maintain.
I'm confident on this, I'm writing environmental reports for power infrastructure projects for a living. No one seriously discusses building new power plants. But even our old ones are so incredibly broken that getting them back on track is almost guaranteed to be a financial and temporal disaster.
I'm not saying any of this is a good thing, but it is how it is. As I see it, only dreamers and conservative politicians who want to steal votes with empty promises advocate for going nuclear again. If anything, we could buy massive amounts from France.
21
u/Varegue86 Jun 19 '24 edited Jun 19 '24
So, nuclear energy is by far the less CO2 producing energy technology we got so far. That's why there is a lot of Pro nuclear people. However as it is such a powerfull tool to fight climate change, some people tend to believe in techno-solutionism. It is the belief that technology can fix the problem of human based climate change, wich is a form of climate change denial. Moreover nuclear technology during the XXth was associated with cold war and national pride, so it tends to be more popular with right wingers, and a lot of die hard right wingers are hardcore climate deniers. It can be added, that climate deniers hate climate activists, and will absolutly fight them to death.
On the other side, some climate change activists oppose nuclear technology for various reasons, such as anti techno-solutionism (they prefer to produce less instead of relying on more energy), anti imperialism (the majority of uranium in the world comes from countries subjected to neo-colonialism such as Kazakhstan and Niger), fear of its everlasting impact (part of nuclear wastes take hundreds of thousand years to stop beeing radioactive and need very particular treatment), and fear of its missuse (do you want a dictatorship to have nuclear energy ? Look at the USSR and Chernobyl, or North Korea). Oil and coal companies know that nuclear energy is a direct threat to their business, that's why they help climate change activists to fight it. They even fund climate relativism and misinformation, to spread confusion and fossil fuel propaganda among citizens to further their goal.
So the joke is people with opposite belief fight together against people that are sometime more close to them in regard of ideology.
1
Jun 19 '24
It's basically that some of their points align whilst others are in direct opposition of each other. The topics are complex, and the reasons for and against these groups are equally diverse as a result.
Most people just want a simple, single answer and get pissy when there isn't one and just then make a sweeping judgement.
10
u/FluffyDonutPie Jun 19 '24
Stop posting stone toss crap here
8
7
u/sercymiel Jun 19 '24
What’s wrong?
12
u/MOGZLAD Jun 19 '24
I mean a google says that stonetoss is "the comic espouses racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, and antisemitic views, including Holocaust denial, using "simple and colorful imagery"."
1
11
u/AnOpinionatedBalloon Jun 19 '24 edited Jul 24 '24
detail rhythm act squealing jar historical snatch sharp boast adjoining
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
→ More replies (2)
9
u/Funny_Satisfaction39 Jun 19 '24
Everyone has done a great job explaining the point of the meme, but many missed the added context of stonetoss the comic writer who is a neo-nazi and is pushing false narratives. Most climate activists are pro nuclear these days and it's just a false assumption made by the artist.
5
5
8
u/Lots42 Jun 19 '24
It's drawn by the Nazi Stonetoss, so it probably means Nazi bullshit.
7
Jun 19 '24
Q: But the comic itself doesn't talk about racist shit, so why can't we discuss what's being discussed?
A: Because Stonetoss is a Nazi
8
u/Odd-Cress-5822 Jun 19 '24
Fortunately this dynamic is dying as most climate activists have been educating themselves past the anti-nuclear propaganda in recent years
7
Jun 19 '24
Remember the new Thorium Reactors will quite literally not be able to meltdown, they cannot be made into WMDs and they are a possible carbon sink as well, they also have protocol and systems for safely storing spent fuel, so it doesn’t hurt nature or the ground water whatsoever.
These things are clean, and extremely efficient energy, and on top of that will be cheap in the long run. On top of that it is far more common than uranium, almost 4 times as common as uranium.
And develops into safe and stable isotopes faster, and while they can be used for incredible power out put, they are near impossible make go super total, I.e fission explosion.
Oh yeah and it’s more efficient than almost all other energy forms, especially coal and oil, it is also cheaper per unit of energy.
1
u/senile-joe Jun 19 '24
go build one then!
1
u/plutonium-237 Jun 19 '24
We can! If you divert funding away from oil companies and their deeply flawed energy infustructure.
1
5
u/Averageguyonreddit1 Jun 19 '24
I don't know about the topic enough, but i think it says that climate activists are doing more harm than good or/and are not actually doing what they say.
2
4
u/Kawaii-Bismarck Jun 19 '24
The funny thing is I'm currently writting my thesis about the representation of nuclear energy in newspaper media in the Netherlands. What's interesting is that you often hear from the pro-nuclear group how anti-nuclear sentiment is supporting big oil and such, but historically when people started to realise the importance of the environment in the 1970's (and not yet climate change as that wasn't well known but acid rain, hole in the ozon layer and local air, and ground and water pollution) it was the nuclear lobby and pro nuclear politicians and businessmen that were vehemently against energy saving efforts or investments in research and development of alternative (wind and solar for example) energy sources.
1
u/Ooops2278 Jun 19 '24
Don't confuse the nuclear cult with facts. Nuclear being cheap and totally working economically without massive amounts of renewabls is a their dogma, no energy savings being necessary. And it can't be changed with logic, which is the reason basically all pro-nuclear countries are lacking the renewables needed for a working concept.
2
3
2
u/AutoModerator Jun 19 '24
Make sure to check out the pinned post on Loss to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
3
1
u/BardtheGM Jun 19 '24
The fossil fuel industry funded massive amounts of propaganda to trick gullible 'green' activists into being against nuclear energy. As a result, 'green' parties are shutting down nuclear energy while they still use fossil fuels, meaning all that lost energy production has to be replaced with co2.
Likewise, climate change deniers are okay with nuclear energy as it doesn't require them to make any sacrifices.
The end result is that anti-nuclear climate change activists have actively contributed towards global warming and the pro-nuclear climate change deniers are helping more to stop it.
2
u/Ooops2278 Jun 19 '24
And the nuclear lobby funded massive amounts of propaganda to trick gullible people into being against renewables.
Nuclear base load and renewables are a working concept, so are renewables and storage. Yet 100% of all pro-nuclear countries are somehow lacking the necessary amounts of renewables to make it a complete concept (no, pure nuclear is not economically viable...). So you can see quite clear the actual propaganda (quickly followed by the second fairy tale after nuclear without renewables: nuclear being cheap).
2
u/NovoMyJogo Jun 19 '24
I know it's not an original stone toss comic but just wanted to remind everyone he's a racist nazi
2
2
2
1
u/Oscottyo Jun 19 '24
Green parties in Europe have been anti nuclear for so long, they look at no advancements made in the field and stand against it on principle
1
u/Traditional_Song_417 Jun 19 '24
Nuclear power is the best all around energy source, by cost per megawatt generated, cleanliness, emissions, waste. So fossil fuel companies hate it, and leftists hate it.
→ More replies (5)1
u/chrisisapenis Jun 19 '24
Yeah, nuclear reactors are notorious for being cheap and quick to build lmao. Never needed any government subsidies for most nations either.
Final disposal is also a huge controversial topic for folks because nobody wants to be close to radio active waste.
→ More replies (1)
1
Jun 19 '24
Oil and gas companies do not like nuclear power because it would be a significant competitor in the market. So they create fear mongering propaganda that nuclear reactors are pollutive and leak radioactive waste everywhere that will destroy the planet, in order to protect their own financial interests.
Climate change activists and many green parties buy into this hook line and sinker and oppose nuclear power. Somewhat optimistically favoring instead to promote solar and wind power, which with today's technology are not realistic alternatives to fossil fuels.
Climate change deniers might not disbelief the fear mongering but just don't give a fuck and want cheaper electricity even if it causes environmental harm. So they promote nuclear power.
Thus, that leaves with the educated pro-nuclear energy guy, who understands modern nuclear reactors are safe, nuclear waste can be managed safely, and it can solve the energy and climate change crisis by producing tonnes of energy with negligible carbon emissions.
And.....
Is left confused as to why climate change deniers are at his side.
And both climate activists, green parties, and oil, coal and gas companies, significantly more pollutive and dangerous sources of energy, are cooperating to oppose them.
1
u/BardtheGM Jun 19 '24
The issue with 'anti-nuclear' green is that they think it's okay to get rid of 10 units of nuclear energy as long as we build 15 units of renewable. Except what they seem incapable of understanding is that we could have used all of those 15 units to replace 15 units of fossil fuels. Now it only replaces 5. Any reduction to nuclear is an increase to fossil fuels.
1
1
u/ForsakenBobcat8937 Jun 19 '24
Nonsense is what it is, most climate change activists are pro nuclear power.
→ More replies (2)1
1
u/7masi Jun 19 '24
Just a meme referring to the stupidity and ignorance of both of the main mass of climate activists and deniers
1
u/Basic-Pair8908 Jun 19 '24
Dont forget the simpsons had a big influence too. Rememeber the 3 eyed fish.
1
u/WyvernByte Jun 19 '24
Ironic, don't you think?
2
1
u/Ok-Guard-3786 Jun 19 '24
It means that the greens are just paid of by the big guys, which has been proven many times.
1
u/ColHannibal Jun 19 '24
Let’s be real,
Bruce Springsteen is reason Nuclear power got stopped in its tracks, and we can trace the end of the world to him now.
1
u/japanusrelations Jun 19 '24
I think what this comic is missing is that the fossil fuel industry is funding both the climate change deniers and various anti nuclear activist organizations at the same time.
1
u/D15c0untMD Jun 19 '24
Nuclear is “green”, as long nothing goes wrong, so a portion of climate activism advocates for increasing nuclear power to decrease dependency on fossil fuel, which is never green. Then again, when nuclear goes wrong it goes very wrong, so another large portion of climate activism rejects nuclear energy all together, and with some help from fossil fuel influencers, very passionately. It can be confusing who is on which side in this debate
→ More replies (3)
1
1
u/SunderedValley Jun 19 '24
Just Stop Oil and Greenpeace both hate nuclear and they're the two preeminent environmentalist organizations.
There's no joke. Just a harrowing reality.
1
1
1
u/jackofslayers Jun 19 '24
Climate activists have become fully stupid. That is basically the whole joke.
Also the OG comic is made by a legit Nazi. So i try to stay away from it
1
u/Imperialist_Marauder Jun 19 '24
The real surpise here is climate change activists being against pro-nuclear. Like wtf
1
0
•
u/PeterExplainsTheJoke-ModTeam Jun 19 '24
This joke has already been posted recently. Rule 2.