With climate change looming, it seems so completely backwards to go back to using it again.

Is it coal miners pushing to keep their jobs? Fear of nuclear power? Is purely politically motivated, or are there genuinely people who believe coal is clean?


Edit, I will admit I was ignorant to the usage of coal nowadays.

Now I’m more depressed than when I posted this

  • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Oil propaganda convinced millions of people that renewable energy sources like nuclear power or wind turbine were dangerous/ineffective.

    Basically humans are stupid and don’t like change and rich people know and took advantage of it.

      • Kalash@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        60
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s renewable the same way as the sun is: Not, but it will last for a really, really long time.

      • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        Because the amount of fuel used in a nuclear reactor is exponentially less than fossil fuels.

        There’s enough nuclear material on this planet to power nuclear reactors for tens of thousands of years.

        Nuclear power is clean, efficient, and lasts for essentially ever

        • Admetus
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s close to ‘renewable’ but technically it should be called ‘low carbon fuel’.

            • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              There are processes on our planet renewing air. I’m not aware of similar processes for fission materials.

              • legion02@lemmy.world
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                It’s renewable in the same way that solar is. Eventually the sun will die and solar won’t work just like we’ll eventually run out of fissible material.

            • Admetus
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              As with all power plants, wind turbines, solar panels, etc. there are carbon costs associated with the manufacturing, construction and transport. Remember that there’s a lot of steel involved.

        • Swiggles@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s an interesting take. I guess the sun is not renewable either.

          Is any practically infinite (in human scales) source of energy called renewable? I am hearing this for the first time.

          • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            10 months ago

            I don’t understand this comment.

            How is the sun not renewable?

            Renewable energy means using renewable resources. Meaning things that either replenish themselves within a short enough period or things that produce massive amounts of energy over long periods of time.

            • Swiggles@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              Because the sun is also a depleting source of energy. I question the definition of renewable that’s all.

              I would have never considered nuclear energy being renewable, but I guess a similar argument could be made.

              • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                10 months ago

                The sun will exist for hundreds of thousands of years after humanity has gone extinct. The sun will exist for millions of years before it burns out. Humanity will thrive diminish and die before the sun dies.

                It is by all intents and purposes an infinite resource for a finite species.

                • floofloof@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  The sun will exist for hundreds of thousands of years after humanity has gone extinct. The sun will exist for millions of years before it burns out.

                  Your timescales are off. Even if humanity lasts a very long time, which seems unlikely, the sun will last for billions of years after humanity is gone. In one billion years the sun will have become hotter so that life becomes impossible on Earth. There will be four billion years of a lifeless Earth before the sun expands into a red giant and either swallows up or cooks the Earth. One billion years after that the sun will kick off its outer layers into a nebula and become a white dwarf. At that point it’s not reacting any more so it just gradually cools down over billions more years until it’s just a cool lump.

                • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  Technically speaking, it does not renew itself. It is being slowly depleted. You are right in saying that we can treat it as a renewable source as far as us and our technologies are concerned.

                • Kalash@feddit.ch
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I’m quite certain we can manage to stop existing before nuclear fuel runs out as well.

                  • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    Is lemmy just stupid?

                    Like seriously?

                    The sun is an infinite resource to humanity. This isn’t a debatable fact. Yet I seem to be receiving downvotes despite this.

                    The sun will outlive humanity a million times.

                    We can either harness it’s energy and other sources like it or run out of energy.

                    It seems people just don’t like the word “renewable”

                    That just makes those people stupid.

      • jasondj@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        10 months ago

        You…can’t be serious right now…can you? Or are you conflating nuclear power with nuclear bombs? Because the two are very different things.

        As climate change leads to non-traditional weather, people won’t be able to farm in the same places. People will be displaced, famine will hit. Droughts will clear up water sources and fights over water rights will happen.

        The only way to reduce the impact is big, non-emitting power that can run 24/7/365 and the only contender for that is hydro and nuclear. And we’ve already built hydro just about everywhere that’s feasible to do so. With a surplus of cheap energy, we can improve hydroponics/vertical farming, reduce transportation needs for food (by growing it closer to population centers), and develop a means of scalable desalination.

        Nah. Nuclear will prevent far more war.

        • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          26
          ·
          10 months ago

          nuclear power and nuclear bombs are the same.

          As long as nuclear power exists, it will be used to pursue bombs.

          Not to mention that nuclear power is incredibly unsafe and damaging

          • Zangoose@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            10 months ago

            Coal mining kills more people per year than nuclear does. Pollution kills more people by several magnitudes than nuclear ever could. When proper safety measures are put in place it’s by far the safest form of energy. And regardless of whether people make nuclear power plants, the technology exists, so it will be used to make bombs regardless

          • Player2
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            You can make an explosive out of a pressure cooker, therefore everyone that buys a pressure cooker is a domestic terrorist! You’re welcome FBI

          • SilverFlame@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            There are newer models of plants that dont produce the byproducts needed for nuclear armaments. The problem is that our governments want those byproducts for nuclear armaments so the safer reactors were never built.

      • Dontfearthereaper123@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Nuclear power plants used to be built from repurchased nuclear weapon factories so if anything it leads to less war and destruction