Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

agnos.is Forums

  1. Home
  2. World News
  3. Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance

Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved World News
world
9 Posts 9 Posters 27 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • ? Offline
    ? Offline
    Guest
    wrote on last edited by
    #1
    This post did not contain any content.
    ? D 2 Replies Last reply
    0
    • ? Guest
      This post did not contain any content.
      ? Offline
      ? Offline
      Guest
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      Good!

      Anti-nuclear is like anti-GMO and anti-vax: pure ignorance, and fear of that which they don't understand.

      Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.

      We've had the cure for climate change all along, but fear that we'd do another Chernobyl has scared us away from it.

      originalucifer@moist.catsweat.comO 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • ? Guest

        Good!

        Anti-nuclear is like anti-GMO and anti-vax: pure ignorance, and fear of that which they don't understand.

        Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.

        We've had the cure for climate change all along, but fear that we'd do another Chernobyl has scared us away from it.

        originalucifer@moist.catsweat.comO This user is from outside of this forum
        originalucifer@moist.catsweat.comO This user is from outside of this forum
        [email protected]
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        imagine how much farther ahead we would be in safety and efficiency if it was made priority 50 years ago.

        we still have whole swathes of people who think that because its not perfect now, it cant be perfected ever.

        ? 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.comO [email protected]

          imagine how much farther ahead we would be in safety and efficiency if it was made priority 50 years ago.

          we still have whole swathes of people who think that because its not perfect now, it cant be perfected ever.

          ? Offline
          ? Offline
          Guest
          wrote on last edited by
          #4

          So uh, turns out the energy companies are not exactly the most moral and rule abiding entities, and they love to pay off politicians and cut corners. How does one prevent that, as in the case of fission it has rather dire consequences?

          dojan@lemmy.worldD 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • ? Guest

            So uh, turns out the energy companies are not exactly the most moral and rule abiding entities, and they love to pay off politicians and cut corners. How does one prevent that, as in the case of fission it has rather dire consequences?

            dojan@lemmy.worldD This user is from outside of this forum
            dojan@lemmy.worldD This user is from outside of this forum
            [email protected]
            wrote on last edited by
            #5

            I mean it's not the companies operating the facilities we put our trust in, but the outside regulators whose job it is to ensure these facilities are safe and meet a certain standard. As well as the engineers and scientists that design these systems.

            Nuclear power isn't 100% safe or risk-free, but it's hella effective and leaps and bounds better than fossil fuels. We can embrace nuclear, renewables and fossil free methods, or just continue burning the world.

            T 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • dojan@lemmy.worldD [email protected]

              I mean it's not the companies operating the facilities we put our trust in, but the outside regulators whose job it is to ensure these facilities are safe and meet a certain standard. As well as the engineers and scientists that design these systems.

              Nuclear power isn't 100% safe or risk-free, but it's hella effective and leaps and bounds better than fossil fuels. We can embrace nuclear, renewables and fossil free methods, or just continue burning the world.

              T This user is from outside of this forum
              T This user is from outside of this forum
              [email protected]
              wrote on last edited by
              #6

              The worst nuclear disaster has led to 1,000sq miles of land being unsafe for human inhabitants.

              Using fossil fuels for power is destroying of the entire planet.

              It's really not that complicated.

              ? 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • T [email protected]

                The worst nuclear disaster has led to 1,000sq miles of land being unsafe for human inhabitants.

                Using fossil fuels for power is destroying of the entire planet.

                It's really not that complicated.

                ? Offline
                ? Offline
                Guest
                wrote on last edited by
                #7

                Except that nuclear isn't the only, or even the cheapest, alternative to fossil fuels.

                U 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • ? Guest
                  This post did not contain any content.
                  D This user is from outside of this forum
                  D This user is from outside of this forum
                  [email protected]
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #8

                  Nuclear energy is a terrible idea in both a physically (climate change) and socially destabilizing world.

                  Even Gen4 proliferation-resistant reactors still represent a lethal threat in the event of a release of fissionable materials into the local environment. Building a nuclear reactor without a cast-iron guarantee that there will be a supply of engineering staff, components, materials and clear strong regulation to keep it running safely is a surefire path to disaster.

                  Whilst the technology and physics behind it are well understood, we have shown time and again in a few short decades of utilizing this technology that we lack the responsibility in our administrative structures to properly manage the risks.

                  It would take just one full-on reactor meltdown or disaster to poison an entire continent. We have consistently demonstrated that we cannot responsibly assume that risk, which is why there is opposition to nuclear power.

                  If you want to avoid bad things from happening, do not deploy a dangerous technology and instead focus on what we can do. Renewables are more than capable of providing for our energy needs, and the big kicker here is that they can do so without putting the literal power "off" switch in the hands of the grid or plant operator.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • System shared this topic on
                  • ? Guest

                    Except that nuclear isn't the only, or even the cheapest, alternative to fossil fuels.

                    U This user is from outside of this forum
                    U This user is from outside of this forum
                    [email protected]
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #9

                    If solar was used everywhere then it would also require a large investment in batteries to power stuff in the night
                    There's pros and cons for everything and probably the best solution is to have several green energy sources, solar, wind, nuclear ect.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • System shared this topic
                    Reply
                    • Reply as topic
                    Log in to reply
                    • Oldest to Newest
                    • Newest to Oldest
                    • Most Votes


                    • Login

                    • Login or register to search.
                    • First post
                      Last post
                    0
                    • Categories
                    • Recent
                    • Tags
                    • Popular
                    • World
                    • Users
                    • Groups