this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
174 points (99.4% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6585 readers
282 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nuclear is the single best technology humans have invented. A broken clock is right twice a day.
Nuclear doesn't scale globally and it's not renewable. It's contribution to humankind's power generation negligible and it will stay that way.
Nuclear is great and all but only when done safely.
diaper donny is saying "donny like fire, make more fire, donny no care where make fire, fire must be more since i say fire good"
This will end up with everyone burning down everything.
Being able to harness the power of atoms is cool, but directly harnessing the power of a star is arguably far cooler.
You don't get nearly as much power and you need huge fields of panels. They are also very weather dependant. Nuclear energy is pretty clean and safe really.
Unless we're talking about a Dyson Sphere thingy. Now that's powa'.
You don't actually need to get as much power out of them - this is a benefit of a system built upon renewables. There's far greater resilience as the power generation is spread out over more nodes, leading to less large potential points of failure. Add in distributed localized storage capacity, and you've got a far more sophisticated solution than one based on a few large nuclear plants.
You don't need to get at much power? You need a certain amount of power, and even if you setup a country wide grid that can self balance, it's is still prone to tons of issues. You then have to setup and manage storage. Issues nuclear just doesn't have.
The solution you're presenting is sophisticated yes, but that's not good. That's more points of failure, more things that can break in the complicated system. You need to account for: weather impacts, storage imbalance and redistribution, maintaining communication between all nodes to balance, finding suitable places to build solar fields, cleaning and maintaining all those panels, having good sun tracking to get max power value, etc. Nuclear makes power and sends it, whenever needed. It's that simple.
That's such a massive oversimplification of operating a nuclear power plant that I'm not quite sure there's any more value to be had in this discussion.
I'm confused as to what you think powers a star.
OP means fusion power vs. fission.
So you are saying fusion isn't an atomic level process?
solar panels, duhh. why'd you think they were called that?
Between that comment and your username you must be a pretty great person.
Uhh thanks I guess? You too
Best TIL I've had in a while.
They are suggesting that pursuing fusion is better…
And I'm suggesting that fusion is an atomic level process.
Well both of you are incorrect because a star is when gravity creates enough energy to cause nuclear fusion.
Yeah that's still atom powered.