Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Aardark235 t1_j8kh1c4 wrote

Reply to comment by HenryGreatSageJunkie in New study shows Acceleration of global sea level rise imminent past 1.8℃ planetary warming by 9273629397759992

You must have forgotten about three mile island… virtually all environmental groups came out anti-nuclear. Still mostly that way.

−5

HenryGreatSageJunkie t1_j8khk6y wrote

Evil oil companies fund them to propagate anti nuclear propaganda. Are you aware that the two largest nuclear accidents have less dead people in these instances than 6 months of fossil fuel production every year?

6

Aardark235 t1_j8kiha9 wrote

I am well aware of the safety of nuclear power instead of fossil fuels. That doesn’t take away from the mass hysteria that led to a stoppage of new plant construction globally.

Nice to blame the bogeyman, but society has responsibility on this one.

−4

HenryGreatSageJunkie t1_j8kir74 wrote

The hysteria was literally funded by oil and gas. It still is. Society is steered by money and the politicians that they own.

What in your mind is the way we get people to stop drilling, stop using cars and just outright curb fossil fuel use? What mechanisms in society exist for us to do this, specifically?

Edited grammar 2nd edit. Also globally there have been dozens of new plants built and dozens more planned.china has built 53 and has 24 more planned. Seems like good planning.

7

BurnerAcc2020 t1_j8mpps3 wrote

You know that those Chinese nuclear plants amount to 5% of their electricity needs, right? If anything, the US already has about twice as many reactors as China and more than anyone else in the world - yet those are just 18% of the US' electricity.

A fully/mostly nuclear grid in the US is always presented as if it's a matter of building just a few more reactors, when the reality is that without a major reduction to the current levels of electricity consumption, you would have to build (and operate) a few hundred more of them. If you think that oil and gas industry is the only reason the US did not build 300/400 more nuclear power plants by now...well, OK, I guess.

0

HenryGreatSageJunkie t1_j8mt2om wrote

No the scale of our electrical needs is easily met with nuclear. We just can't let capitalism run them.

Also op was talking about recently built reactors and new ones planned, China has built the most recently and has planned the most in the future. Why does everyone want to ignore the literal billions of dollars oil and gas has spent to spoil people's opinions on nuclear energy to the point that you just can't fathom building hundreds of plants around the globe.

Edit: what mechanisms exist in society that will allow us, the working class to change things to the point that we don't require as much energy in the future? Capitalism only knows consumption, and they're in charge. They own the oil and gas and they own the politicians that legislate. The future is the poor getting priced out of energy and dying, it's not a utopia of reduced emissions ushered in by shell, ExxonMobil and Halliburton continuing record profits.

2