Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it’s actually pretty popular.

Do you have some that’s really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?

  • Gamey@feddit.rocks
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    While I fundamentally agree but you realky downplay nuclear waste, we don’t have any way to dispose of that btond theory, just temporary “solutions” and while coal also generates highly toxic waste the “just so few grams” part isn’t great if you ask me! Don’t get me wrong, in our current situation coal is about the worse wnergy source we can use but atomic power most likely won’t be “the future” like almost everyone in that thread claimed ether and if it’s just because we don’t even have enough urainium supply the world energy consumption for more than a few year. Another fast that really worries me are the rising natural disasters, that’s about the only way a modern reactor can truly cause damage and we will need a lot stronger rules around the areas we place those in, a earth quake area like Fukushima for example is a awful place for them! Another argument against it is that the real price of nuclear energy is by FAR higher than any other kind but currently paied by taxes rather than those companies or peoples energy bills and that won’t improve considering we have to store the shit for millions of years and don’t even know how yet. I am open to arguments on the topic but if all I get are downvotes and “that’s not what I read” without any source and no matter what I write that’s simply not a community I want to participate in.

    • Gamey@feddit.rocks
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or in short, my unpopular take is that we can call nuclear energy green (nature loves environmentes without humans) calling it sustainable or technology of the future isn’t much smarter than bridging with fossile gass when you are far too late to the party already!

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Nuclear is sustainable though, we can sustain it for the forseeable future - many generations. Fossil fuels are not sustainable, their supply is more limited and the consequences of pollution too severe.

        Nuclear is not renewable, but it is sustainable and not polluting so it fits into the category of “green”.

        However, nuclear is not quick. Like you say, we’re already late to the party when it comes to fixing things. Using money and resources for nuclear over renewables may end up taking longer to get to net zero than just going hard on renewables and transmission first (although the specific circumstances do vary widely by region/nation).

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          How is the waste of the reactors not considered polution? Especially when you consider that if people would really decide to make a swing for nuclear power there will be a lot more waste.

          • mlc894@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Doesn’t “pollution” refer to material that is released into the environment? We could make an argument about uranium mining being polluting (because it is), but operating a nuclear plant does not create pollution during operation.

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Do you trust every single country / political part on earth to store the waste for thousands of years responsibly and safe?