this post was submitted on 05 May 2026
350 points (81.8% liked)

Science Memes

20129 readers
3081 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/68257855

Nuclear is the best btw.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Nonsense, fision energy is expensive and dangerous.

Only in Germany there are over 12.000 tons of radioactive waste and nobody knows where to stored it secure for the next 100.000 years. It's depending on third countries to import the needed Uranium Indestructibles containers in a geological stable vault is a bad joke, it don't exist, at least not enough for all the waste, not even for the already existing. A nuclear reactor has a life span of ~50 years max, after this it need to be eliminated, a process of over 10 years for descontamination and elimination of more radioactive waste with a cost of billions of $, paid by the country, as said, by you, not by the company. Means 50 years energy and >50.000 years problems. Nuclear is the best, but only if we have an working fusion reactor, means, maybe in 10-20 years. Meanwhile the fision energy is sponsored by certain lobbies and the weapon industry, they are the real reason.

In Spain the energy costs for the user are ~14 cts/kWh at some hours even free (the lowest costs in the EU), thanks to the intensive use of renevable energy, blocked often by fossil and nuclear lobbies in other countries.

[–] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Two things can be true.

Nuclear energy can be prohibitively expensive and impractical and have a massive storage problem. And fossil energy can still be even worse with externalities.

My 2 cents:

For the case of Germany, yeah it would be batshit crazy to build new nuclear reactors right now. Completely irrational. But turning off the existing ones prematurely was a grandiose idiot move and here we are still mining brown coal. People hold up the "but the nuclear plants that got shut down were replaced with renewables, not coal". Yeah, well those renewables were supposed to replace the coal.

[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 5 points 2 days ago

The German situation is (as usually) especially frustrating since it comes down to the right-wingers cashing on a moment of high uncertainty for a bit of popular support and they have since then both sabotaged renewable energy and blamed the nuclear exit on other parties.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

FFS, no one ever argues that we should replace nuclear energy with fossils, even the genuine fossil fuel lobbyist politicians don't argue it like that. Why even bring it up?

Yes, obviously nobidy argues that. I don't see how I brought that up

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago

It's undestandable to use existing Reaktors some years more, because closing them, as explained, is an even bigger mess with inacceptable costs. The consquences of an Hype promoted by Lobbies, without any thoughts and planning about, like selling expensive cars without brakes.