[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives

File: 1655797443119.jpg (8.77 KB, 225x225, th.jpg)


Here's a right wing talking point that I cannot disagree with: why do environmentalists always poo-poo nuclear energy? Saying "Oh no, we could have a chernobl" is like saying "The Orville brother's plane crashed after 30 seconds! I'm never going on a 747".

Who is in their pockets?


Environmentalism is middle class lifestylism
But why is critiquing it right wing?
What is left wing about deep ecology and the cthulhucene?


Nuclear energy is broadly accepted by the socialist left it's not a big deal. Also if you're a socialist working in a militarily weak state it gives you the cover for a nuclear weapons program.

The real question is why everyone seems to be on board with carbon taxation which is a thinly disguised and crude method to break down the average worker's standard of living by making everything from transportation to food to heating more expensive.


The problem is that 'the green movement' is still dominated by old ass environmentalists from the 80s/70s who associate nuclear with nukes and corporate badness due to several nuclear nothingburgers that were massively hyped in the press (plus Chernobyl).


R U German?
Nuclear is undeniably better than coal, which is what Europe is turning to.

Sage because its not even controversial.


Greens are unironically funded by oil, gas and coal companies.


File: 1655835739082.webm (2.37 MB, 360x360, lunarsolarpower.webm)

>environmentalists always poo-poo nuclear energy?
Which ones, exactly? We're not all retarded.


It's a holdover from when we could maybe debate whether or not to use nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels. Just agree with their critique and try to win over environmentalists on this issue, nuclear energy is currently a lesser evil we must accept for the time being and this is slowly winning people over.


It's not really a leftist position, more of a hippie lib one. Pretty much all socialists support nuclear energy; any "leftist" that doesn't probably also believes minimizing their carbon footprint actually does anything instead of Minecrafting oil execs.


>nuclear energy is good, actually
isn't a rightwing talking point. Their energy policy begins and ends with
>let's burn more fossil fuels to own the libs


>why is critiquing it right wing?
It's not, but I hear this argument almost exclusively from them and they're 100% right about it.

That's what I'm saying, it is better.

Those who actually sign legislation.


because those are Saudi astroturf orgs


>why do environmentalists always poo-poo nuclear energy?
1960s hippie LARP


It depends on the type of nuclear power, of course. Pressurized water reactors are inherently dangerous and have a lot of other undesirable characteristics. Molten salt thorium reactors, on the other hand, are inherently safe and use their fuel source massively more efficiently. Unfortunately, anti-nuclear partisans are completely incapable of addressing the nuance in this debate and have a really asinine habit of painting all the problems of a particular kind of nuclear power onto all the other possible types.


JCP is super anti-nuclear as an example.


the anti-nuclear movement is promoted by natural gas and coal energy companies who dont want actual competition.


If youre taking about the Japanese Communist Party, they're just stooges that pretend to be leftist to decieve the working class.


because no one has a serious answer as to where we store nuclear waste. the answer is put in the ground and hope for the best. That's not a long term solution and likely to go very bad


>muh nuclear waste
Get informed


aside from that (and previous arguments) maybe because both hydro and wind power are both much safer in their eyes at least?


There's almost no chance of a modern reactor of any type failing.


Feed it to heavy water reactors until it's burned out almost all of its energy.

Also a significant fraction of the burgerstan environmental movement is pretty heavily divided on nuclear energy and it's one of the few things they're better about than yuros.


If an earthquake, flood, or sabotage befalls it, yes pressurized water reactors absolutely can. If any of those things happens to a molten salt reactor, it just fizzles out. But as I said there are plenty of other undesirable characteristics to typical pressurized water reactor. They use their fuel source extremely inefficiently to the point where they're a non-viable form of power that wouldn't last more than a couple decades were they to ever constitute the majority of Earth's power generation, they require gigantic quantities of concrete to build, and they produce some undesirable fission products.


Get ready for the endless posts from pseuds about their magic modular reactors that are only being stopped by big oil. It's our community's variant of the weirdo gear head boomer schizos who believe in the 300 mpg carb that was suppressed by tptb


>If an earthquake, flood, or sabotage befalls it, yes pressurized water reactors absolutely can.
Is this why the Japanese Communist Party is so anti-Nuclear?


It's going to be a real challenge to get Japan to trust nuclear power again after what happened in Fukushima.


too bad the Military Industrial Complex only wants PWR to breed plutonium for use in nuclear weapons


"Green" liberals seem to exist in a post-New Left ideological space where climate change matters because it is hurting Mother Nature, not because it is hurting us


It is not new, it is just repackaged paganism, with all the same human sacrifice from long ago
They should be burned at the stake, again.


I'm pro-nuclear and think the green libs are brainwashed retards or deliberately ignore thorium reactors as well as general progress in nuclear energy tech, because they are on the payroll of porkies who do not like nuclear energy because it hurts their business modell and diminishes ROI or on the payroll of the CIA with the sole purpose of fucking up the energy supply of a country the anglo-empire perceives as rival.
However nuclear energy tech still needs rare resources to transform, it is high maintenance and needs a grid with servers which are always at potential risk of sabotaging.
Nuclear plants may serve well as energy provider for big industrial plants and facilities, however energy for private homes, transport and such would be better off with energy coming from sources such as solar, geothermal, wind, water, maybe H. Combinations of these can already provide enough energy for an entire autonomous household or small farm and even produce overshoot that can be streamed to other consumers.


>It's not, but I hear this argument almost exclusively from them and they're 100% right about it.

because you're listening to too many radlibs. Socialists from Leigh Philips to Paul Cockshott are openly pro nuclear as are the majority of this board.


Not to forget that nuclear powerplants can take up to 2 decades to build, time we don't have, and most countries now have a lack of people who have the knowledge on how to build and maintain nuclear plants.

Please do not forget your medication

> That's not a long term solution and likely to go very bad

But that's wrong, you can bury it in places which have no seismic activity and ideal soil conditions.

There are plenty of environmentalists who are okay with nuclear, even if it is more of a concession


If this is a right wing talking point now then it's only because they're contrarians


>Here's a right wing talking point that I cannot disagree with
<posts a left-wing talking point


This is tinfoil hat territory and Im deralining but I have a theory that Psyopers are laundering left wing ideas through the widely despised right, both to spoonfeed arguments against them to the general population via MSM as well as to tarnish the ideas themselves via guilt by association.


That's not a leftwing standpoint, that's a retard's standpoint. Fucking Thorium when?


As far as I understand nuclear energy is expensive no matter what bullshit the nuclear lobby and Bill tells. Its here for 70 years and costs have not been lowered. Unlike wind and solar which are cheap as fuck and continue getting cheaper. Problems like what to do with waste has bot solved however much they spam docus with the same 30 year old project of underground storage facility. And when accidents happens, turning counties into ghost places there is cost that is not calculated in the advertisement.

The thorium story, is being spammed for 20 years. We still haven't seen real results although we might soon. I believe nuclear will have a future. After all nights are difficult since there is no sun and less wind. But I don't think the problem is politics. Also huge initial capital costs…


This is not a valid argument against the technology. Plenty of nuclear power is operating in a perfectly safe way, it's not tech-bro magic, it's actually existing stuff that works. Nuclear waste storage is a also a solved problem now. Build a nuclear power plant, drill a 5km deep hole with standard drilling equipment borrowed from the oil and gas industry, dump the waste in the hole, never see it again, even for geological time periods. No new technology solutions required, just reusing existing stuff.

>when widespread global leftist movements fought against nuclear proliferation and unsafe nuclear plants.

That movement went politically wrong because they should have fought for safe nuclear power instead of fighting against unsafe plants. They ended up hampering nuclear technology, which played into the hands of fossil fuel industry which is more environmentally destructive. If they had fought for safe nuclear power, that would have sped up nuclear technology development.

>nuclear bombs

bare little relation to nuclear power. A nuclear power plant is a device for containing a nuclear reaction, a nuclear bomb is a device for making a nuclear reaction run away exponentially. It's on different ends of the spectrum.

So they are using the bad reputation of the right to discredit nuclear power ? I admit that it does sound plausible.
But it could also be that the right wants to advocate for nuclear power to improve their reputation.


You do realize that thorium pilot plants are up and running, that is actually existing technology.


>As far as I understand nuclear energy is expensive
France has a lot of nuclear power , roughly 70% of electricity comes from splitting atoms, and the electricity is cheaper than in most places.
>Unlike wind and solar which are cheap as fuck
Not true if you factor in the cost of battery storage
>Problems like what to do with waste has bot solved
It actually has been solved recently with deep drilling storage.
>But I don't think the problem is politics.
The problem is mostly politics
>Also huge initial capital costs
Yeah private capital isn't patient enough, but as a public sector atomic power is a no brainer.


>Extraordinary claims
Nothing i said is an extraordinary claim, what i said is not controversial to scientifically literate people.
>Then build gravity batteries
The only gravity battery that works are hydro-power dams, and we have exploited most of that potential already.
Nuclear power is a necessary component for clean energy, not just because energy storage is expensive, but also because the energy return on energy investment is too low for wind and solar alone. Nuclear would subsidize the weak EREI of solar and wind.


The deep-drilling waste storage is done onsite. that means the hole is drilled at the same spot as the nuclear power plant is build. So there would not be any waste dump-sites.

>you readily believe any tech bro bullshit

No i don't
>Did you invest in crypto
>And who needs trains
I like trains
I hope you realize that these are bad faith debate tactics, not valid arguments.


>solar, geothermal and wind. They're safe.
Yes, but nuclear power is safer still, empirically fewer people are harmed in the making of nuclear power, relative to the amount of power produced.
>You can design the plants so that all of the parts are recyclable/reusable, unlike with nuclear.
For the same amount of energy nuclear power also produces less overall waste including the decommissioning of old power-plants, you are just underestimating how much energy a nuclear station can make, energy density pays off big time for environmental factors as well

>There is no accounting for risk and when a disaster happens

Fear mongering like this has to be dismissed. Of course it's possible to manage the risks of nuclear power, as seen in most nuclear power plants in operation.


>nuclear plants requires huge investments
That's why it's a good fit for the public sector because capitalists scare away from huge investments
>You don't need a fully planned economy
F you, I need a fully planned socialist economy.
>for creating the mindset of scarcity
I want nuclear power to create the mindset of abundance, because i'm not a fucking neoliberal looking to justify austerity with a environmental pretext.


>mindset of scarcity to cleanup and unfuck the planet
hi malthus


>muh cost!
Really funny hearing this argument on a socialist image board. Cost means precisely jack and shit if a clean energy source is incapable of providing enough to save civilization from environmental collapse. It's still questionable whether current renewables are capable of producing enough energy to completely replace fossil fuel sources. Nuclear and lunar solar power are the real alternatives.


>When a solar plant or wind farm malfunctions you maybe fry some birds.
In fact wind power kills large numbers of birds and bats through standard operation.


>nuclear = mindset of abundance
>renewables = scarcity
why is that anon? if we can choose the unlimited option why choose a finite one?


>Germany outlawed it, and Japan gave up on it and they're held up as the best countries at using nuclear safely. Smart people don't trust nuclear for a reason
Now you have to demonstrate what makes Germany and Japan so much smarter than countries with nuclear power. Good luck anon.


Explain to me how we handle nuclear waste


TLDR: Nuclear is inherently dangerous. No matter how hard you'll defend this finite energy source responsible for Chernobyl and Fukushima, the fact that radioactivity kills cannot be changed.


Because carbon pricing would indirectly flow through to consumers, the Australian government implemented household assistance measures.

The measures included changes to income tax: the tax-free threshold increased from A$6000 to 18200 on 1 July 2012, and was scheduled to rise to A$19,400 from 1 July 2015.[94] The changes meant those earning less than A$20,000 received a tax cut with those earning up to A$5,000 receiving the greatest tax reduction.[95][96] The changes were described as the biggest overhaul of taxation since the Goods and Services Tax was introduced in 2000.[95]

Other steps included direct payments into bank accounts beginning in May 2012.[97] The payments, called the Clean Energy Advance, were targeted at low- and middle-income households.[98]


Cool story, now scroll up through the rest of the thread, back to here for instance >>1026183:
>Unfortunately, anti-nuclear partisans are completely incapable of addressing the nuance in this debate and have a really asinine habit of painting all the problems of a particular kind of nuclear power onto all the other possible types.
This is you, anon.


Also worth mentioning is that nuclear is also finite, which makes usage of them more or less the same as using coal for energy generation. Furthermore, if it is massively used in various countries, one can expect America starting a war for nuclear in a country rich in it, just like how America started wars in the Middle East for that sweet, sweet black gold called petroleum. Nuclear magnates in the style of RDS, BP, ExxonMobil, etc. may also form.


File: 1655955405243.png (217.12 KB, 741x2019, ClipboardImage.png)

Why do you keep making this connection between nuclear power and neoliberalism? like 90% of all nuclear reactors under construction right now are in China, the rest scattered


Nuclear magnates in the style of Shell and Exxon may form. Their goal? Just like those black gold magnates, to drive up prices by monopolizing over uranium, and make countries switch over to nuclear. When a crisis in the style of 1973 happens, most countries will then become impoverished, while those scumbags become richer, and thus the former may be subject to imperialist domination by the latter.



Your fallacy is: the straw man. Distorting your opponent's argument so that you can then easily dismiss it. Nobody said radiation couldn't possibly kill, you fucking moron.


>that can't realistically be buried
you literally can bury it, that's the beauty of the technology. Not indefinitely perhaps but an issue in thousands of years is better than the pollution killing us right now.


> if we can choose the unlimited option why choose a finite one?
the finite one is at a stage of development that can feasibly meet energy demands for a population, renewables are not.


>Who is in their pockets?
Or better yet, read Manufacturing Consent. If you want an idea in someone's head, you don't just pay them. Wouldn't work on you, and ecoterrorists are *far* more idealistic than you.

Anyway, I like modern nuclear power but it does still have waste and polutions. I won't just be redundant and repeat what everyone said.


Nuclear energy will be needed to fill the gaps for-profit wind and solar will not (indeed, cannot) cover. That isn't even a right wing talking point; it's just a fact. The for-profit nuclear energy industry appears to making strides toward miniaturization (something that very well could have happened had the SL-1 incident not occurred over 60 years ago), which is a promising development.


The Fukushimas and Chernobyls of the world make headlines and people imagine that radiation creates fallout monsters or something. Funny how the people going to Chernobyls receive more radiation in the flights they take to go there. In reality you can swim at the top of nuclear pant pools without risk because the water shields you from 100% of the ionizing radiation.


File: 1655978222243-0.jpg (379.1 KB, 1200x1200, Lord Keynes.jpg)

File: 1655978222243-1.png (83.31 KB, 654x757, KILL YOURSELF SHILL.png)

Carbon taxation is net regressive even in Nordic Model states like Sweden which have a far more expansive welfare state than lolstralia.
I will CHOKE YOU TO DEATH for your disinformation you neoliberal shill!


Sadly it's not


I'm against it
1. it will be private property for profit, etc.
2. it is dangerous, potentially. There was a fight at a working atomic plant in Ukraine and what if construction was damaged?
3. not sustainable, depends on material, but it can't be an energy source for long time at current energy consumption
4. what for? Powering giga virtual coins mining and more frequent production of less durable goods? If it is really important for living, ok, nothing else to do.. but may be better to produce fixable/durable goods and by doing so, reduce the need in more energy.

Sage since it is offtopic.


> What for
Crypto mining and shit product manufacturing aren't the only things that use a lot of energy.
Stuff like green hydrogen production, aluminum refining, and more use a whole crap ton of power.


We can say the same for anti gas and anti coal movements being funded by potential future CEOs of uranium mining companies. Finites are cringe.



there's literally enough uranium for at least 100 years even if 100% of the world's energy was nuclear. renewables are still too low output and resource intensive to be a short term solution


>it will be private property for profit
the coal plants that will be opened instead will be the same,but even more polluting.
"no but what if they instead…" not gonna happen.


May be, but they have to prove that the risk is worth it, the energy is used on something very necessary. The risk in case of disaster - some land goes out of use for long time. And the land is what is the most important. It is where food is grown and people live, the human level of living depends highly on land and only may slightly on something else.

Again, what for? If it is for production of pollutants, like for example, goods that do not have long work time and mostly used as toys. These goods are pollutants. So who cares, it is +/- some coal whatever fumes and co2? If you need energy to pollute in the first place.. wtf. Also, these consumption will not stop. They will add a few nuclear plant + some time later, if they can benefit from even more toys consumption and they need energy, they will again build coal plants.


>muh nuclear waste!
>muh safety!
>muh peak uranium!
Shut the fuck up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_II
<Breeder reactors (such as the IFR) could in principle extract almost all of the energy contained in uranium or thorium, decreasing fuel requirements by nearly two orders of magnitude compared to traditional once-through reactors, which extract less than 0.65% of the energy in mined uranium, and less than 5% of the enriched uranium with which they are fueled.
<"Integral" refers to on-site reprocessing by electrochemical pyroprocessing. […] The uranium and transuranium elements are recycled into new fuel rods, and the fission products are eventually converted to glass and metal blocks for safer disposal.
< In April 1986, two special tests were performed on the EBR-II, in which the main primary cooling pumps were shut off with the reactor at full power (62.5 megawatts, thermal). By not allowing the normal shutdown systems to interfere, the reactor power dropped to near zero within about 300 seconds. No damage to the fuel or the reactor resulted. The same day, this demonstration was followed by another important test. With the reactor again at full power, flow in the secondary cooling system was stopped. This test caused the temperature to increase, since there was nowhere for the reactor heat to go. As the primary (reactor) cooling system became hotter, the fuel, sodium coolant, and structure expanded, and the reactor shut down. This test showed that it will shut down using inherent features such as thermal expansion, even if the ability to remove heat from the primary cooling system is lost.
It was even subject to a glowop to shut it down
<Despite support for the reactor by then-Rep. Richard Durbin (D-IL) and U.S. Senators Carol Moseley Braun (D-IL) and Paul Simon (D-IL), funding for the reactor was slashed, and it was ultimately canceled in 1994, at greater cost than finishing it. When this was brought to President Clinton's attention, he said "I know; it's a symbol."


You don't speak for me


File: 1656016791886.jpg (139.55 KB, 640x380, margs_vs_the_monorail.jpg)

Or the majority of the board aren't pronuclear and it's 3 obsessive STEMlords sameposting about their fetish for depositing more nuclear waste as a proxy for their infertility issues.

Just leave the extremely finite resource that we don't need and that only lasts 100 years in the ground. We might need it in the future for space ships or just to stay alive when a giant asteroid hits and blankets the planet, renders solar useless and causes a prolonged ice age. That's another reason to keep the fossil fuels in the ground too instead of burning them when the planet is not even cold.

Most of what we produce we don't need. Huge amounts of things go directly to the landfills. We don't need to keep growing our energy demands and should begin cutting back on waste and learn to produce what we need more efficiency.

Says the NPC who likes to sing about meme tech with the Silicon Valley choir. You would have supported high cost and non-scalable monorail and any hyped up fad transport over building plain old cheap trains that aren't sexy but actually work. How is your hyperloop coming along?

We'll electrify and figure out ways to manufacture that stuff with hydrogen which carries a lot of power. I bet you we don't need to manufacture as much new aluminum as you think either since I see metal thrown away all the time and substitutes exist including new ways of constructing high rises with bamboo. How did our ancestors manage before aluminum?

There are a lot of 20 year olds on this board who didn't actively follow any of those disasters when they happened so they laugh stupidly and say "Godzilla isn't real!" They haven't internalized the lessons of having a trillion dollar disaster like Fukushima (after government cover ups and who knows how much worse the damage might actually be.) Or the psychic toll it of having to move from your ancestral homeland because the equivalent of fossil fuel companies fucked up and caused an artificial disaster. Or the toll of mothers who were too poor to leave the area fearing their kids will develop early cancer because they played in the fallout. You aren't really considering the human cost or you would never ever support expanding nuclear energy under this century's existing technologies and regulatory environment.


this tbh


File: 1656019089635.jpg (60.66 KB, 720x799, 20220309_153845.jpg)

Or the majority of the board aren't antinuclear and it's 3 obsessive anprims sameposting about their fetish for malding over nuclear waste as a proxy for their infertility issues.
>Just leave the extremely finite resource that we don't need and that only lasts 100 years in the ground.
That assumes a 100% nuclear grid, which realistically is never gonna happen and will probably be supplemented by wind and solar. Not only that, but it doesn't count using breeder reactors nor does it count extraction of uranium from seawater, which would last indefinitely.
>Says the NPC who likes to sing about meme tech with the Silicon Valley choir.
Being pronuclear doesn't make you a techbro, and I sure as shit don't support any of that garbage you mentioned over rail electrification or mass electrification in general. The difference between those pipe dreams and nuclear power is that safer, cleaner, and more efficient designs like the IFR were developed by public funding over decades and showed results.
>We'll electrify and figure out ways to manufacture that stuff with hydrogen which carries a lot of power. I bet you we don't need to manufacture as much new aluminum as you think either
See, we almost agree here. There are a lot of processes that can be switched over to clean energy, and we also need to reduce consumption to reduce the need for those processes in the first place. Hydrogen is a bad choice though since the power you use to make it could be used directly instead of suffering losses from converting one source of energy to another.
>muh safety again
Again, designs like the IFR are safer than the designs in those disasters, but even ignoring that, this just brushes aside the cold hard numbers showing that, relative to energy generated, more people die of workplace accidents from solar and other renewables than die to nuclear energy.


>Hydrogen is a bad choice though since the power you use to make it could be used directly instead of suffering losses from converting one source of energy to another.

Hydrogen allows you to transport energy even across the ocean. That's why South Australia is investing in it because they already produce a surplus of energy from solar farms. The idea is that countries with extra solar can trade it with countries that have less renewable energy.

>more people die of workplace accidents from solar and other renewables than die to nuclear energy.

Which sounds a lot like Donald Trump complaining that windmills are ugly and kill birds. It's ridiculous as a comparison. More people suffer and die of cancer to nuclear energy than renewables. Checkmate, neoliberal.

You also can't even measure how many people will die cleaning up the mess caused by nuclear energy, when containment fails and tunnels collapse from mining a material that you perpetually need to extract more of. You can't estimate the suffering from leekage of wastes into the aquifiers at a time when our water has already been contaminated and reduced by forever chemicals and industrial runoff unless you have a crystal ball that can peer thousands of years into the future.

But since you don't care about increasing the pollution of trace radiation rhen how about putting lead back into gasoline too?


because they don't care about the environment their goal is to feel good while selling green labeled shit


What do you mean by "switching some process to clean energy"? Like it is possible to switch just one or some processes.. no, the price will lower for all manufacturing, with nuclear plants, for some time. And as I said, there is likely a positive loop. Lower price -> higher production -> more energy. But more waste -> even more energy will be required for recycling. In the end, the gain from cleaner energy is canceled by more production and just more waste accumulates, with very skeptical gain of over production.

Light and wind energy give some limitation to this positive loop. Even coal burning have this loop limitation capability if co2 tax is used. They at least somehow limit the waste accumulation.


I don't think extracting uranium from seawater is a good idea, that's likely to have some kind of massive environmental impact. Far better to have a nuclear power economy based on thorium, which is massively more abundant and produces more power per input in a molten salt chain.


I agree with you on nuclear power, but solar, wind and hydrogen are still useful for many applications.
The correct line is that we use all of those technologies. Don't let your self be baited by these strange people, you don't have to choose between either nuclear or solar. You can have all of it.


>I agree with you on nuclear power, but solar, wind and hydrogen are still useful for many applications.
NTA but only the anti-nuclear shitposters ITT are presenting this false dichotomy between nuclear or renewables


> only the anti-nuclear shitposters ITT are presenting this false dichotomy between nuclear or renewables
Oh, alright then.
Maybe it would help if we understood why they doing this.

I understand some of the class motivation to oppose nuclear power.
Eco-neoliberals opposes nuclear power because they want energy scarcity, they want to push down the poor under the guise of caring for the environment.
Regular neoliberals oppose nuclear because capitalists can't corner the market on nuclear power like they did with fossil fuel.
You can get thorium everywhere and uranium can be filtered out of the water from the ocean. That means there is no way to monopolize the fuel supply.

But i don't understand the reason for that false dichotomy, what do they gain from posing nuclear and renewables as opponents ?


>what do they gain from posing nuclear and renewables as opponents ?
It's fossil plants propaganda. If you destroy support for nuclear in favor of renewables, coal plants get guarantee for stable future. Anyway, discussion about nuclear vs renewables is not universal debate everywhere, no? I was in impression that it is mostly present in german-speaking countries


Investment is limited. Windmills/solar panels are scalable and non-controversial and work, while nuclear plants require intense pressure and overcoming political factions just to build one and fighting oligarchs who want to monopoloze them and cut corners even if it creates 3 mile island.

That energy could be better deployed on other socialist or environmental projects.


>and work
How do you answer for Germany's increased reliance on fossil fuels after they rejected nuclear?


Stupid government hasn't remotely enough in renewables.

Unique IPs: 45

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]