/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

The only real issues with Nuclear power are 1)where to store the waste and 2)how to prevent catastrophic human error

Solar and Wind are inherently more "democratic" (for lack of a better word) because no one can own the sun or the wind, but uranium mines are privately owned as is the uranium itself. This is why Libertarians support it because it is easier to form a monopoly

Well, nuclear waste can have a half-life of millions (if not billions) of years. Also there could be contamination of areas around the nuclear power station and the nuclear dumping ground, potentially harming any organisms that dwell there. But also some animals can adapt to the radiation, for example, the dogs of Chernobyl.

The main issue with nuclear energy is nuclear weapons. Not because power plants can be used to manufacture weapons, but because this technology's development has basically been chained to the development of weapon technology (space exploration has the same issue). As others have pointed out a practical issue of nuclear energy is where to store the waste, and there are many avenues we can explore to resolve this issue in an all-round positive way for the working class. The historical issue is that none of these solutions are particularly useful to weapons tech. I think thorium salt reactors are a bit overhyped, but there is a reality that research into such reactors has been held back because of its irrelevance to weapon development. All of this points to a reality where nuclear energy can only really flourish in a world without nuclear weapons, which can only exist as a socialist world.

>>2694407
> everyone who talks about how nuclear energy is so much more efficient is a libertarian or some other kind of right winger
That's like a 20 year old stereotype, and really the anti-nuclear-power movement peaked in the 80s/90s with libs reacting to Three Mile Island in the USA, and Cherenobyl in USSR.

The only thing that worries me about nuclear power in the US is that we live in a generation more proudly ignorant of science than ever, and more disdainful of safety regulations than ever, so if the US tried to double down on nuclear power you would probably get more meltdown incidents.

But if you run them well, nuclear power is great. I think we should use solar and wind wherever it is possible since that is pretty much free renewable energy, even if it isn't that much bang for your buck. Imagine if all the uninhabitable deserts and wasted rooftop spaces were filled with solar panels. That would be worth it I think.

>>2694427
Also, did i mention that nuclear energy can be used for terrorist threats?

>>2694427
>The main issue with nuclear energy is nuclear weapons. Not because power plants can be used to manufacture weapons, but because this technology's development has basically been chained to the development of weapon technology (space exploration has the same issue).
yeah, that's exactly why the US keeps destroying Iran's nuclear power plants even when there isn't that much evidence they're developing nuclear weapons (they should though)

>>2694407
Nuclear good, solarpunk bad

>>2694430
>imagine if this beautiful landscape was filled with le energy production so i can play my vidya
Treatlerite extinction when

>>2695548
made up greentext. take your meds

>>2695544
not mutually exclusive. photons are literally free and rain from the sky. might as well grab them.

Surprisingly less radioactive than burning coal. A good transition fuel source in the transition to full renewable.

Nuance being it only makes about 5% of China's total generation, according to wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China#cite_ref-9
And that's peak according to the chart.
5% is nothing to scoff at, and maybe placement matters. Were I less busy I'd look at the map on this, or see if a paper exists on that.

>>2695571
Very exclusive. I’m not advocating for no solar. I’m advocating against solarpunk and it’s fanatics. The bastards have no idea of the concepts of grid integrity and inertia. It’s honestly grating to see how primitive peoples views are of proper energy management.

Cultural context is important in understanding why older people regardless of political persuasion, were wary of nuclear energy. Someone will bring up Chernobyl, but the shift actually began even earlier. The film The China Syndrome starring Jane Fonda, was essentially about how unsafe nuclear energy was and just 12 after its release, the three mile Island incident occurred. These two events caused public support for nuclear energy among boomers and gen-Xers to plummet. The Simpsons a product of this worldview, would further negatively impact public perception of nuclear energy among Millennials.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/the-simpsons-may-affect-view-of-nuclear-plants-prof-1.807902

>>2696861
>I’m not advocating for no solar.
Then they're not mutually exclusive.
>I’m advocating against solarpunk and it’s fanatics.
Then be anti-twitter, rather than letting them form your worldview through your attempts to contrast from them.

>>2694407
Nuclear was a good idea 50 years ago and in that sense they were right, but nowadays the economics of solar+storage have improved to the point where nuclear is an expensive meme with too long a lead time, even before you factor that in most countries it needs state backing and their state capacity is so withered that it'll either never happen or blow its already outsized budget. ("Most of the cost of nuclear is capital costs, running costs are low!" Isn't so economically enticing when the capital cost is fundamentally uncertain)

It's fine but probably will fail whenever there is a major drought

>>2696867
>Then they're not mutually exclusive.
Solar and and the disease known as solarpunk very much are mutually exclusive.
>Then be anti-twitter
They’re not just on twitter. They’re everywhere, and it’s fucking disgusting. I’ll be damned if I let the boomer hippie oil exec mindset reincarnate itself.
>>2696868
>Nuclear was a good idea 50 years ago
And it’s a better idea now.
>but nowadays the economics of solar+storage have improved to the point where nuclear is a
Viable and important energy source that has no equal, at least until fusion arrives, which it will still exist then, because untapped resources is wasted resources in an entropic universe, and because redundancy and diversity is fun and good.

>expensive meme with too long a lead time, even before you factor that in most countries it needs state backing and their state capacity is so withered that it'll either never happen or blow its already outsized budget. ("Most of the cost of nuclear is capital costs, running costs are low!" Isn't so economically enticing when the capital cost is fundamentally uncertain)

Using the economics of your favored energy sources, made under the current mode of production we are trying to abolish wholesale, developed by known cheapskates, as evidence for their superiority on a communist board is a move.

>>2696875
Skill issue

>>2696877
Lmao ok, if there is not enough water in the river, you cant cool the plant, how is that a skill issue? You're going to conjure up water?

>>2696876
Solarpunk doesn't exist outside of twitter, failing to use renewables where possible is retarded. Failing to use nuclear where possible is retarded. Letting twitter discourse decide that one or the other shouldn't be used is retarded and by definition idealist, as you're letting ideas overrule what is materially necessary.
>They're everywhere.
You are stuck in twitter and it's suburbs. Touch digital grass.

>>2696881
Skill. Issue. Check your placements.
>You're going to conjure up water?
Not impossible.

>>2696866
Homer Simpson works at a nuclear power plant that almost exploded multiple times because of the lack of safety measures in place and the ignorance of the bourgeois owner Mr Burns (who would rather tear up his workers with his hounds than provide simple air conditioning) and his little capitalist appologist Smithers

>>2696883
>Solarpunk doesn't exist outside of twitter
It does
>Letting twitter discourse
It’s not just twitter discourse.
>decide that one or the other shouldn't be used
I’m literally doing the opposite, but okay.

>You are stuck in twitter and it's suburbs. Touch digital grass.
I’m typing this from a grounding mat as we speak. I don’t want to hear that bs.

>>2696885
Yes, that's the joke and the social commentary. Mr. Burns the extremely greedy capitalist, runs a nuclear power plant that's portrayed as environmentally unsafe.

>>2696890
<decide that one or the other shouldn't be used
>I’m literally doing the opposite, but okay.
Okay I traced the thread back and appearently you were responding to someone that brought up solarpunk.
I thought you were saying nuclear and renewables were for some reason mutually exclusive because twitter solarpunkoids were sneeding about nuclear, when really you were talking about solarpunk itself.
>I’m typing this from a grounding mat as we speak.
Digital grass means like, web surfing and fedi and such.

>>2696891
Exactly, that's what i meant. Nuclear power is mostly an economic libertarian fantasy for their end stage capitalism wet dream

>>2696894
>when really you were talking about solarpunk itself
Exactly
>Digital grass means like
Know what that means. But I prefer hopping off instead.
>>2696898
Remove the capitalism and the libertarians.

>>2696900
nearly every libertarian are libertarians just so they can own everything and become part of the Elite or they just want to own guns and jerk off to 'p

>>2696906
>become part of the Elite or they just want to own guns and jerk off to 'p
Usually both

>>2696884
Ok so you are a retard

nuclear is expensive. otherwise it would have been everywhere.

to make it cheap, you need to cut safety, which mean more meltdowns.

>>2696876
if the economics of nuclear power do not stack up under capitalism (but do under communism) then discussion of nuclear power under capitalism is just masturbation time for people who could be dealing with the immediate issue of replacing capitalism with communism but prefer to elevate their particular technological fetish above that issue.

you can talk about nuclear power under present conditions (in which case, hey, it doesn't add up) or you can be mocked for wanting more "will there be ice cream under communism?" slop.

Environmentalism is a useless battle until socialism is achieved globally.

>>2694431
This is ultimately irrelevant. that someone can make threats about something is hardly a reason to not build it. I can threaten to blow up the radiation source in a CT scanner — even follow through with it — and contaminate an entire wing of a hospital. Does this mean hospitals shouldn't have CT scanners? Of course not. The benefits, particularly when paired with good security, greatly outweigh the risks.

>>2694432
No, the US is destroying Iranian power plants to cripple its infrastructure and force an economic crisis. That being said, the forms of nuclear power Iran has invested in is 100% to keep their options in weapon development open (at the very least). Of course this isn't even remotely an acceptable reason for imperialist powers, principally the US and Israel, to bomb them.

>>2696909
No, I just don’t have a skill issue
>>2696912
Abolish capitalism
>>2696915
>then discussion of nuclear power under capitalism is just masturbation time for people who could be dealing with the immediate issue of replacing capitalism with communism but prefer to elevate their particular technological fetish above that issue

This is a discussion of energy is in general, not just under capitalism. Specifically, we were talking about anti nuclear sentiment, which ties into a discussion about the inefficiencies and wastefulness of capital, and how communism is superior.

>>2696916
Discussion of lacking infrastructure and negative environmental impacts, all of which affects the proletariat, is a must.

>>2696916
Battle against constrains of the current system is how battle for socialism looks in practice.

>>2696934
>billionaires wanting to live forever are AES
And this is why vague as fuck slogans are for retards.

>>2694407
you can now scale energy much quicker and cheaper with solar than you can with nuclear. nuclear involves mega infrastracture projects that can take 8-15 years (often longer in western countries) and they require a lot of custom engineering, safety reviews, regulatory approval, specialized laor, etc. if anything goes wrong (and something always does), delays compound and financing costs explode. for instane, the interest during construction often becomes half the plant’s final price.

but nuclear can still be an important addition to the energy mix during lower solar output hours (night time, cloudy weeks, winter) so the country doesn't have to rely on fossil fuel like coal to supplement the energy during downtime. in places like australia, this is less of an issue because of naturally sunny climate and the improvement of batteries. china still has winter months so china is still building nuclear faster than anyone despite their solar capacity growing vastly faster than nuclear capacity. they are building nuclear to have a firm 24/7 backbone to suport the intermittency of solar energy. nuclear fusion would also be a gamechanger as it removes the hard waste problem and obviously produce more energy than traditional nuclear. however, even in that case, the deployment of solar would still very likely add more total electricity capacity per year than fusion for a very long time. that's because it's still limited by how fast humans can physically build generators and would still act as a supplement to solar and not the dominant energy source.