Post removed. Not a meme and also nuclear power really isn’t that bad.


He's right we should turn the sun off ASAP.


Eternal darkness, pls


"Hello darkness my old friend." *Texas*


I was about to say this! Everyone is hoarding expensive gas for all the generators they bought.


_Unkindled one_


Sanity’s Requiem


I was gonna say it if no one else did


Yeah. Pro nuclear, but anti sun.


I mean, it was a pretty awesome game.


Off-topic, but reminds me of that Twilight Zone episode where the Earth has fallen out of orbit and is slowly falling into the sun. Twist ending reveals >!the Earth moving towards the sun was a fever dream by the main character--in reality the Earth is moving away from the sun, and the world's inhabitants are slowly freezing to death.!<


Damn that's kind of badass though


Yeah! Twilight Zone was a pretty badass show in general.


Great episode


One of my to ten episodes


That's one of my favorite episodes and inspired me to write a Sci fi flash fic story called "Hellsius"


It’s going to meltdown any minute now


Also he is wrong... A nuclear power plant rips molecules apart (fission) while the sun fuses atoms and molecules together (fusion). If we actually did invent true fusion, we likely would have something akin to near infinite energy, but I think that is many years into the future, so until then I am fine with green energy (Nuclear too I guess... But new powerplants can be rather expensive).


We turn the sun off, we end climate change. /s


Pretty sure that'll also change the climate, but at least Antarctica will stop melting.


This is somehow the best comment i've seen on this subreddit


What if the sun spills? I hear it's already writing radiation..


Real cause of global warming right there


Doesn't the sun get it's energy from nuclear fusion, while nuclear reactors use fission? They're quite different...


Whoah, woah, woah, there buddy, you're talking big brain science stuff, I don't know if they can handle that knowledge yet.


NOT HOME: Gone fission 🎣


*screams as superheated, charged particles slam into each other*




To be fair the top comment pointed that out and the general consensus was that the tweet was stupid.


*only fusions ah know bout is that cold fusion Mountain Dew brother! Yeeehaw!*


Yeah and he's kind of missing the point as well as being wrong. People are worried about nuclear reactors on Earth because of meltdowns. The stuff happening on the sun isn't relevant.


Even tho those fears are mostly overblown.


Entirely overblown. Nuclear energy is safer than any other reliable form of power. Embracing nuclear would have saved countless lives from climate change, toxic coal emissions etc. Made electricity and fuel prices lower. But fear mongering beats out facts I suppose


fossil fuel lobby and public influence campaigns did a lot of work to shape the narrative. that and 50+ years of thermonuclear brinkmanship have scared people away from anything nuclear, despite the safety of nuclear power


Plus they can exploit the shortcomings of the human mind. Pollution from fossil fuels result in more deaths and ecological destruction than the issues arising from nuclear power. But the latter makes the news because it is easily seen and happens immediately rather than over time. Same thing with how for awhile there were more people dying of Covid in the US every day than died in 9/11.


when you're associated with bombs that level cities it's pretty hard to get good PR


That's all the more reason to use up the available fissile material for energy. Less capacity for use to wipe out the human race.


Chernobyl was enough to stop development without all that. Fossil fuels lobby was mostly focused against pollutant and containment regulation, and wind/solar development.


millions die from fossil fuel pollution every single year. humans are just terrible at evaluating risk, our brains are looking for tigers and don't see long term threats clearly


Sounds like something a tiger would say.


Well, I’ve got this rock that helps keep tigers away…




I'm old enough and was nearish to Three Mile Island (Central Pennsylvania) when I was a kid when that blew and then Chernobyl, plus all the cold war nuclear stuff put the fear into GenX and before, but yeah I know and agree it's just like pushing past a phobia haha Not saying I don't support it but it's hard to go past your whole formative years up to adulthood being programmed on how dangerous it is


I love The Simpsons, but they definitely put the fear of nuclear power into a lot of young impressionable minds.


The risk is never zero and more plants means more opportunities for failure. While risk of failure is tiny, the result is catastrophic. Beyond that is the problem of waste for which we have no real solution. What would have helped with the climate would have been to stop subsidizing fossil fuels companies so they would have had incentive to invest in renewables research and development. But again, short term profits were favored.


Absolutely. The only worries from nuclear power either an accidental meltdown (which shouldn't happen if the people there have even a pip of competence) or some idiot going in and blowing it up, but that's what security's for.


The issue is human error


Thorium salt reactors aren’t self sustaining so they can’t melt down. The issue is when everyone thinks nuclear reactors they think gen 1 reactors. We have moved on to I think gen 4 or 5.


>Thorium salt reactors aren’t self sustaining so they can’t melt down. And there aren't any in commercial operation. >The issue is when everyone thinks nuclear reactors they think gen 1 reactors. And that's largely because the vast majority of the reactors currently operating in the U.S. were built in the 60s and 70s. And that's coming from someone currently helping build Vogtle Units 3/4.


All of what you said is spot on, but having a conversation about nuclear energy should at least include the newer generation reactors.


Fair enough, hoping small modular reactors(SMRs) and Thorium reactors end up being successful and financially effective.


> (which shouldn't happen if the people there have even a pip of competence) And the big issue there is that private interests aren't going to hire competent people.


I’d argue that solar and wind are *far safer* because on top of not being coal/gas, they can also be decentralized which greatly reduces risks of outages and can (with a sufficiently interconnected grid) cover more of the day-to-day needs when one region has plenty of daily sun/wind and others don’t. Nuclear needs a lot more funding for research and development so it can be more quickly deployed, upgraded, and removed should the plant need to be moved or repaired - even best estimates I’ve seen for modern tech says ~10yrs to deploy a new plant and *billions* in dollars which with then take 5-10 years to recoup its construction costs in energy production… Meanwhile solar and wind are almost instantly able to be productive at smaller scales. We need rooftop solar and wind where the region makes sense to exploit, but that doesn’t mean Nuclear doesn’t have a lot of potential if we could remove the profit-seeking nature of centralized energy production and fund the sorely needed research to make it easier/safer/smaller.


> We need rooftop solar and wind Solar and wind farms at large scales will be way more efficient than rooftop. We wont go far with only rooftop solar.


And yet corporations have repeatedly shown us a blatant disregard for public safety over profit. Add to that human error. That is why people are against nuclear power. It can be safe as all hell, but then you add in cost cutting, bad management, and nuclear power destroys all land in 50 miles.


Find a municipality that would agree to become a terminal nuclear waste deposit; and find me the insurance company which would take on the risk of reactors and waste management facilities. Then we can talk.


coal plants are riskier than nuclear plants, and those still get built all the time. The last major problem with a reactor was 2011, and that was triggered by an earthquake. Nuclear reactors are usually very safe, it's just in the rare case they're not, it gets plastered all over TV Here's a graph from a study on mortality rates of different energy sources. https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ It finds that Nuclear energy is safer than rooftop solar, and both are about 100-1000 times safer than coal or oil.


Modern research has also greatly reduced the waste’s volatility and promises to make rods either recyclable or a way to fully nullify the radioactivity - which would eliminate a lot of our fears over long term waste storage. The byproduct of total radioactive decay is lead - while not a great material to have in your drinking water, it is certainly easier to store or dispose of.


It does not matter what the facts are, but how the stakeholders behave. France‘s society and economy is pro nuclear, which is why their economy runs mostly on this type of energy. Germany on the other hand is very reluctant to nuclear energy, which is why they want to switch fully to renewables. However, Germany didn’t do this purely out of goodwill. The population is distinguished for decades by anti nuclear movements, the municipalities hate waste facilities, and insurance companies are very hesitant of engaging with this business.


we're not discussing the merits of voters or insurance companies, we're discussing the merits of nuclear energy.


>t finds that Nuclear energy is safer than rooftop solar well, to be accurate, that data is safety per kW/h. That means nuclear energy is the safest by energy output, but I can't see the statistics for total deaths caused by each energy source. So it may be that wind or solar are safer, but produce far less energy. I also can't see how the data was collected, so I'm not a huge fan of the source in general. I think nuclear reactors are way safer than people give them credit for, so there's no need to use unverifiable sources like this.


if solar is safer but produces less energy, you build as much solar as it takes to match the energy output. Safety per kwh is the only metric that matters. It doesn't mention ground solar, so most of the deaths are probably people falling off roofs or improper installations electrocuting people


Yeah but rooftop solar is a decent supplement, though the conflict mineral use isn’t good. Molten salt solar is much better


but yeah the site needing an account to view the actual source of data is cringe


I hate when sites do that. like, how am I supposed check and confirm a study if I can't see more than the abstract??


I dont oppose Nuclear energy, but the reason i personally dont necessarily believe to be a solution isnt due to meltdowns, as per amount of deaths, Nuclear Energy is by far one of the safest. The two issues i have with nuclear is 1: Handling of waste. We dont yet have a place where we can permanently store nuclear waste. The places we do store them in is essentially dig them underground in canisters for hundreds of thousands of years. I am opposed to this as the consequences are so far into the future that we cannot prepare for how to handle them, we are essentially shovlikg that responsibility down thousands of more generation, into a future so far away that we are currently closer to the dawn of human civilization, than the time when that waste will br safe again. 2, Its not sustainable. Due to the issue with nuclear waste, along with the extraction of materials, its clear that nuclear energy is not a permanent solution. Its a solution that may help us combat global warming in the short term, while more sustainable solutions are put in place. The issue however is that nuclear powerplants are expensive to build, and can take 10-20 years to complete. That means starting construction today, a powerplant might not enter into use until the year 2040. We need to combat Global Warming now, setting up the replacements so that theyre ready in 2040 is much too late, ontop of which you have to ask the question, once its running, how long are we going to run it for? Its not sustainable in the long term, and as a solution to global warming you need to ask yourself how necessary its going to be. If we are at that point in 2040 where we need nuclear power to curb global warming, it would be much too late, and so i cant really see nuclear energy as a possible short term solutions either. That coupled with all the emissions released by the construction, and mining of the fuel. Nuclear Powerplants already in service is another matter though, and those i do believe should be kept in service. But mass expansion of nuclear power worldwide is not the answer. Reduction of energy usage, such as lower energy requirement for appliances, and exploitation of local resources for energy is a better solution for me. Solar, Water and Wind. This would ofcourse necessitate the development of efficient storage of excess electric production, to offset days where the sun isnt out or the wind isnt blowing. We should also facilitate the distribution of energy accross countries more, without extreme prices. The biggest thing standing in the way of a shift in energy is profit. We have put our survival in the hands of profit seeking. If we want to curb global warming, we need to transport energy between countries for cheap, otherwise low production countries will have no insentive to make the switch, and will stay with whatever they can get.


>The biggest thing standing in the way of a shift in energy is profit.renewable.... we need to transport energy between countries for cheap As much as I hate capitalism, the real biggest issue with international energy transport is voltage drop. A country would have to build a plant on their border to transmit into another country, and it would still have a max distance of a couple hundred miles (enough to cover many small countries, but still a big limit). The US, for example, could only reach roughly the northern maybe fifth of Mexico, I think. Definitely no other countries to our South. So build plants just to service part of another country inefficiently? Nah, if we actually want to help them, just aid them in building their own renewables.


Actually what happens on the sun is quite relevant. One good solar flare and like 70% of electronics on Earth just get fried. So kind of hurts his point even more.


Also what are we gonna do? Turn off the mfing sun?


Good idea!


I’m not worried about meltdowns. I’m worried about the radioactive waste that we have no way of getting rid of and we don’t have a safe long term storage solution for.


Not an expert so this could be wrong, but I have heard that thorium plants are currently being researched as an option which would have more manageable waste


I oppose nuclear power not nescessarily because of meltdown, but because of environmental destructions from mining operations and storage, costs and logistics (lots of uranium comes from conflict areas or highly corrupt nations). Nuclear power is only as stable as the supply chain.


I live downwind from a nuclear accident (Rocky Flats) and they did everything to cover it up and are now selling very radioactive land to out of state developers for housing after firing anyone who said it was a bad idea. My family took a direct hit and only got a small settlement a few years ago despite the sites repeated safety violations over a 40 year span. Nuclear energy is only as safe as the people designing and running things and unfortunately human error and greed can cause a lot of problems with a "safe" technology


nuclear is one the safest. far more people die as a result of hydrodams bursting yet we keep building more of those


So why not the fusion reactors they're working on in France then? Only needs hydrogen for fuel, and the only products are helium and heat from the reaction


I don't know anything about it, but sounds interesting.


Or thorium reactors, solve most problems associated with uranium


Fossil fuels kill millions of people every year, even with the leakages and unusable land and downstream hypothetical cancer, nuclear is still orders of magnitude safer than fossil fuels. Go find some statistics.


Indeed. Not only people, but animals and wildlife as well. Just about anything (except brown coal), is less damaging than petroleum based fuel. Every single step in the logistic chain of petroleum fuel has among the highest environmental impact compared to alternatives.


Solar panels are made of minerals with questionable mining practices too. I'm not saying that is a good thing, but my point is that all energy has its costs. We don't have a way to store all that solar power for when the sun is off, besides massive reservoirs which have their own environmental concerns. Solar, nuclear, and hydro combined is the best way to actually phase out fossil fuels, which are BY FAR the biggest enemy here.


They are the direct opposites to each other.


Only in one sense. They both get energy from the conversion of matter into energy I think.


They’re literally opposites. Atomic creation, v.s. Atomic destruction


They are opposites, but it doesn't make sense to call either one creation or destruction, since both do both. Fusion makes a lot of smaller atoms into a smaller number of bigger atoms, and fission does the opposite. So in fusion two hydrogen atoms are destroyed to create a helium atom, and in fission one uranium atom is destroyed and krypton and barium atoms are created.


Actually fusion is something that can be used too, it's just not as common. It's still being researched though!


There’s a lot of research being done on achieving nuclear fusion plants! The great thing about fusion would be that it doesn’t produce the waste that fission produces, nor does it require uranium as fuel. I would assume that both of those factors mean that a “meltdown” also wouldn’t be as much of a concern, but I’m not an expert in that field.


Nuclear energy is one of the safest power sources, more people die from air pollution from natural gas and coal and oil than nuclear


Coal plants are far more radioactive than nuclear too


Also the sun is 90 million fucking miles away. I actually agree that we should be building new nuclear power generation, but the argument presented here as some kind of “gotcha” is dumb as hell.


Hey hey woah woah hey! We talk basic science around here. Get outa here with that science 102 commie bs.


Pretty sure a nuclear plant is just a sun. Home grown, natural.


Definitely a stupid comment but nuclear energy ain't that bad


Ngl, I thought this was legitimately funny.


Same, but I'm worried they were being serious...


Me too because reply is even more idiotic that initial statement.


You mean nuclear power is bad? Because lots of climate scientists think it’s almost a necessity to slow climate change before alternatives can be relied on. It’s pretty good compared to what we have now


I think he means that they're two vastly different things and it's a ridiculously silly comparison to make.


Nuclear is the future. Wuwei reactor is big news and there's going to be like 35 more built in various countries


What ever happened to the Wuwei thorium reactor anyways? Last I heard was they were doing trial runs, but that was last september or october IIRC


They said it will take months before they really have a full report or whatever. The plan is to build like 35 more in various countries **if** it proves to work right


I hope it does, but I've been hearing that thorium is just around the corner for over a decade.


thorium’s byproduct doesn’t produce nuclear weapons like uranium does, hence why the US has so far only invested in uranium


It’s the only real renewable alternative that can replace coal plants. Baseline power just isn’t possible through solar or wind. It’s too inconsistent throughout the day to provide a steady source of energy. They’re still great for peak power, like during the work day when solar and wind is at its peak, but at night it isn’t able to meet demands. I guess hydroelectric is possible too but that’s a larger can of worms to open up. Nuclear is the best option, provided you don’t build on a fault line and waste can be disposed properly.


It's not renewable. It's clean.


Yeah you’re right, wrong terminology on part


Iron saltwater batteries are a new technology that’s looking like the storage answer. Overproduce during the day and use these batteries that should be sufficient. There’s also hydroelectric batteries. Thermal batteries can help too. We need to be throwing the resources we’d be putting into nuclear at batteries even inefficient ones are better in the long term.


Yeah, we have more of a problem with coal


Nuclear is the future


I thought it was pro-nuclear energy? Is the tweet person trying to say that we shouldn't use solar power because the sun uses nuclear energy??? I'm confused now


I believe the tweet is being facetious, and is pro-nuclear, while thumbing its nose at solar-only energy solutions.


He’s pro-nuclear. Indicates to me that it’s not a right wing meme since they love sucking on the dick of the gas and oil lobby


ummm but it's a pretty funny joke and nuclear energy is safer than hydroelectricity if you consider deaths per kilowatt generated.


And environmentally cleaner when you factor in the pollution released by the millions of tons of concrete being made.


Nuclear power isn't as bad as people think it is. All it really is, is a way to boil water for power


The problem is people comparing the 0th-2nd gen reactors to 4th gen. It’s not so different how they work in the first place, but they are a LOT more efficient and safer


What worries me (at least in the US) is the assault on any form of government regulation and oversight by the political right. Imagine the corner cutting of profit driven capitalists running a nuclear power plant without sufficient oversight.


it'll be really ironic if modern day US has a chernobyl 2.0


Apparently by some estimations three mile island was as close as 30 mins away from that level of disaster but it was prevented. I just watched a Netflix show about it. Hard to tell how much of it was sensationalism but it was an interesting watch either way.


It’s impossible for Three Mile Island to ever have failed as catastrophically as Chernobyl did for a few reasons. First off, nuclear reactions are not inherently explosive. They do however generate a ton of heat which is used to boil water into steam to turn a turbine, generating electricity. Steam at high temperatures and pressures can be explosive and is the cause of the explosion at Chernobyl. But the existence of pockets of steam within an RBMK reactor (Chernobyl) results in power output increasing whereas pockets of steam within an PWR reactor (TMI) will cause power output to reduce. The explosion of Chernobyl was caused by a sudden, unexpected spike in power as the control rods were being inserted that caused a steam explosion, resulting in the core (now on fire) to be openly exposed to the environment while it was still actively undergoing a runaway meltdown. This is why Chernobyl was so catastrophic and so much radioactive material was released into the atmosphere. While TMI was undergoing a runaway meltdown, the design of the reactor meant that there was no chance for a similar type of steam explosion to occur. Additionally, reactors in the US were required to have containment structures built around the reactors to provide a secondary barrier between the core and the surrounding environment even if an explosion was to somehow happen. Good safety comes from not having single points of failure and while some things did fail in unexpected ways at TMI, overall safety precautions in place were able to SUCCESSFULLY stop the meltdown resulting in 0 deaths or injuries and no environmental contamination! And people still see it as a disaster… Unfortunately nuclear energy is treated as a ticking time bomb in most media today when in reality it is statistically the safest form of power generation even slightly more so than renewables and by far the safest when looking at deaths/MW generated. Literally about x100000 safer than coal and orders of magnitude safer than any fossil fuels. Even the excellent Chernobyl HBO show that came out a few years ago had a sensationalist slant to the fallout (no pun intended) of the disaster. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/?sh=400f7010709b


>What worries me (at least in the US) is the assault on any form of government regulation and oversight by the political right. Imagine the corner cutting of profit driven capitalists running a nuclear power plant without sufficient oversight. Absolutely this. Safe, well regulated nuclear power is more efficient and more green than most of what we use already. But something like setting up a nuclear plant in Texas, where the power grid avoids connecting to the larger US grids to avoid regulation? No thank you.


I’m pretty sure nuclear reactors in Texas still have to follow NRC rules, and the NRC is quite strict


That’s basically why Fukushima Daichi was as bad as it was, the company was cutting corners for profits


Capitalists don’t like safe reactors that are actually expensive. And there we have the real problem


Also much more expensive. Renewables are way cheaper.


Upfront cost is more expensive. Lifetime cost from everything I’ve read (not an expert) is cheaper The big benefit of solar (and wind) is scalability. You can get projects started with a lot less land and a lot less money and expand in phases. Which is easier to stomach for most cities and municipalities.


Yeah, that’s actually the best argument against nuclear energy. Because of being hella expensive it draws away the money from renewables. Though for some uses it’s better to have nuclear reactors, like some far-off outposts in Antarctica, only to name one.


Only because nuclear research has pretty much been halted. And cheap power is only good if it's reliable. We need a mix of power sources, including nuclear. Hopefully once fusion reactors are built that can take over, but at the current rate that could take a while


Why not both?


It’s a tricky subject because Chernobyl specifically resulted in a lot of medical problems and possible cancers that may have lead to death. But if you erase Chernobyl and their horrible management of the situation using their terrible equipment, it’s like 50 people that have died because of a nuclear plant and most of those were steam accidents. https://environmentalprogress.org/nuclear-deaths Like 12+ people a year still die from coal. 2 died on Friday in India. https://m.timesofindia.com/city/bhopal/2-mine-workers-die-as-coal-block-falls-on-them-in-betul/articleshow/91569617.cms I personally like nuclear and solar


You're also talking about deaths directly related to coal energy production. The amount of deaths indirectly caused by coal pollution are probably innumerable, not to mention the non-fatal side effects like breathing issues. The very highest end estimates for long term deaths related to things like cancer from Chernobyl is like 60K people but those are extreme and probably not realistic, the actual numbers are probably closer to 4000-16K deaths, and that's spread out over decades and decades. A 2018 estimate for for deaths caused by fossil fuel pollution was 8.7 *million*. In one year. That isn't *just* coal but coal would make up a pretty large portion of the pollution being tracked.


Chernobyl resulted in a lot of _medial_ and image problems in the first place


At the same time, there have only been a handful of nuclear accidents, and we know what caused all of them (and even knew the problems BEFORE the accidents occurred) The only real exception to that might be Fukushima, but even then the design is just illogical (with the emergency generators being in the bottom of the powerplant and likely the first place to flood)


Fukushima was actually insane, one of the biggest earthquakes ever measured hit Japan, resulting in the biggest island of Japan moving a few meters and the axis of the earth moving a few centimeters. Resulting in a many meters high tsunami that went over the nuclear reactor and only one person may or may not have died from the aftermath of that.


Only because the wind went the other way, away from Japan. If wind had gone south, the story would be different. I’m just saying.


Uh, from what I remember there was no breach in containment. Like the reactor melted, and there was a hydrogen explosion, but I'm fairly sure the containment buildings were still fine.


Buddy, you're gonna be so mad when you find out most leftists, whether in favor or against it, understand nuclear energy better than you. And you'll shit bricks upon learning the difference between manmade fission and naturally occurring fusion.


This was posted in r/conservative and I checked the comments. There was a lot of: "Wait, do you leftists oppose nuclear?" "No"


Most leftists were already smart enough when we say The Simpsons for the first time, to realize that the villain is Mr. Burns, not the power plant itself. Also, the soviet union had nuclear power plants, I mean, Jesus fucking Christ, even most tankies are in favor of nuclear energy for crying out loud. I act surprised but I'm doing it mostly for fun, since I'm aware fascism is about being contradictory and wrongful on purpose. Or long story short, I think that for the average leftist, nuclear power is every bit as amazing as it is incompatible with the private sector.


The American left has the same sort of relationship with nuclear power that the right has with weed. They both want to conveniently forget that they used to be irrationally opposed to it, now that they’ve realized it has lots of benefits, and that the risks were never as horrible as they allowed themselves to believe.


It kind of supports it as if an average idiot like Homer can run the faculty without much problems than it is more safer than it looks.


Nuclear is the best we got for efficiency and safety reasons, people love to slander it because of bad press and comparisons against decades old reactors when modern technologies have made nuclear a safe and reliable source of energy, markedly so against coal and oil


Nuclear power is great though


not to mention the potential future technology to start getting power from the sun directly


dyson spheres go BRRRRRRR


Dyson swarms are better, due to the fact they wouldn’t fall into the sun like a dyson sphere.


Well, that is closer to the original idea of a Dyson Sphere. The whole "encase the whole fucking star" is only from pop culture misunderstanding the original idea and is now referred to as a "Dyson Shell".


Plus, Dyson sphere kinda turn every other planet into a ice ball


It works great as a transitionary energy source moving toward cleaner methods. Of course, it works better in places that aren't sitting on fault lines - looking at you, Japan!


it is not only a transitional energy, it is the energy that will allow man to conquer space: solar panels are a good source of energy but the surface/power ratio is too low


I truly hate the view of space exploration that describes it as conquering. Haven't we seen what horrors arise from mankind conquering?


Its doesnt though. Current projects take at least 15 years. Thats too late. It might become really important in the far future, but current technology is too slow and expensive.


What's right wing about supporting nuclear energy? It's the lowest emission power source we have that's capable of providing massive amounts of consistent power.


Beep boop -- this looks like a screenshot of a tweet! Let me grab a [link to the tweet](https://twitter.com/aarmlovi/status/1525572160181477378) for ya :) ^(Twitter Screenshot Bot)


Good bot


Thank you, TheMightyCatt, for voting on properu. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)


That’s nuclear fusion Dumbass


I mean we are testing nuclear fusion


Nuclear energy is not the most ideal, but it's definitely better than fossil fuels. It should be used as a transitory step to clean energy


I mean nuclear power is the power with the lowest cost of live per kWh so it is kind of the best if you ask me (yes solar and wind at accounted for in this statistic)


True, I do realize that we will probably never be able to go 100% clean because of the lower output. I only mean "not ideal" because it still uses non-renewable resources and produces waste that we're forced to stuff underground. But it isn't giving copious amounts of people lung cancer, so I'll take it


> But it isn’t giving copious amounts of people lung cancer, so I’ll take it Don’t forget it’s [windmill cancer awareness month](https://i.imgur.com/XpNHzdK.jpg)


The newer generation of reactors can actually use the waste from older reactors as fuel.


Current thorium and uranium reserves are estimated to last tens of thousands of years (40k-100k years) if we shift all energy production to nuclear. "Non-renewable" is disingenuous as it leads people to compare it to coal or oil which we don't have a ton of left.


the problem is nuclear barely makes any profit... so energy companies dont want to build them


That's not true if you include development, construction and disposal costs. Nuclear power is MUCH high $/kWh compared to solar power when all costs are considered, it wouldn't even be competitive in the market without billions in public funding.


The right is trying to create the meme that the left opposes nuclear power just because they support renewables. Just the typical reaction to nuanced issues.


You need to nuclear to work with renewables for when your renewables aren't producing enough to meet demand, like at night. Battery storage is much more expensive than nuclear


Ok, I think this one is genuinely a funny joke.


Given the title is "Checkmate" I'm reasonably confident this is supposed to just be humorous and not a sincere argument against solar power.


Nuclear energy is still based


nuclear fusion that we can't reproduce at a commercially viable rate yet, but we are researching right now?


People here aren't being anti-nuclear, right? Right? (it's basically the best form of energy production yet the stigma still exists) Also fun fact: coal plants LITERALLY release more radiation than a nuclear power plant.


Fun fact: the sun is actually against abortion


Nuclear power is one the safest and cleanest forms of power out there and if you have more questions feel free to message me to ask, I’m a nuclear engineer so


Conservatives like nuclear energy now? I thought they were all about fossil


Nuclear energy forever uwu


Nuclear is fantastic. Stop letting competing interests make you afraid of science


the only way humanity survives is through nuclear power proliferation. renewables are decades away from being able to power the world and we don’t have that time


why are they always saying checkmate, when they are clearly playing checkers?


I mean fusion and fission are different, but I support nuclear power still 100%


#Please make sure to read our [__subreddit rules.__](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRightCantMeme/about/rules/) ##We are partnered with the Left RedditⒶ☭ Discord server! [Click here](https://discord.gg/7HQkjUR9np) to join today *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheRightCantMeme) if you have any questions or concerns.*


I absolutely hate the whole anti-nuclear brigade. nuclear is 100% our best option and we need to start investing in it as soon as possible if we still want to be able to produce energy in the future with less impact.


These people are so dumb it's unreal 🤣


Please correct me if I'm wrong but part of the issue with Nuclear fission is that it has a polluting effect on our environment. The sun's nuclear energy reactions aren't happening on this planet, so why would this matter to Earth? Am I missing something? Surely this comment isn't as stupid as it seems to be. It can't be that stupid, right? They can't be that stupid, right?


> Please correct me if I'm wrong but part of the issue with Nuclear fission is that it has a polluting effect on our environment. No, not really. Obviously, nuclear has the potential to be dangerous, but humans have realized the need for safety precautions and regulations as a result of the few disasters that have occurred. Technology has changed a lot in the last 50 years, and safety measures have improved along with technology and experience. Modern reactors (and even retrofitted older reactors) have zero impact on the environment around them, beyond the impact of building a large building. I think there was a story about one nuclear plant killing fish by not letting the water cool sufficiently before releasing it back into a river, but that's just clean hot water. (Note: Nuclear power is harvested by using a fission reaction to heat water, and using the steam generated to create electricity - just like in coal, oil, gas, or biofuel plants). There is the issue of waste disposal, but even that's not really a concern. There have been exactly zero reported incidents from nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant causing injury. IIRC, there are some from improperly disposed of medical waste, but not from power plants. Modern reactor designs allow more of the fuel to be used to produce electricity. When the fuel rods are spent, they're submerged in water which allows them to decay while blocking radiation from escaping. When the rods have sufficiently decayed, they, along with all of the other radioactive waste (including anything that may have above baseline levels of radiation, including PPE, tools, equipment, etc) are stored on-site at nuclear plants in concrete dry casks. These casks are large (though smaller than you might think), with thick, reinforced concrete walls, and are designed to last longer than the material inside will stay radioactive, which is on the order of 50-100 years. Nuclear produces significantly less waste than most people imagine. Even the largest nuclear plants may have 10 or so dry casks, which are generally about 8 ft in diameter and 15 ft tall. Here's the thing: Coal creates more radioactive contamination of the environment in a year than nuclear ever has or probably ever will, even including disasters such as Chernobyl.


You can't just ignore the nuclear waste problem. That shit doesn't just go away, it lasts for millions of years. We still don't actually have any long term storage facilities for high-level waste, we're all just banking on the idea that we're gonna bury it deep underground someday. Which is a hell of a lot easier said than done. And the more of it we make, the more of it we have to figure out how to bury safely underground without geologic activity disturbing it. And since the timescale we're talking about is so long, "geologic activity" means more than it ever has before to architects. You know how old boomers don't have to worry about climate change cause they're gonna be dead before it starts affecting things too bad? That's us with nuclear waste. And our children, and our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren. It is a problem that will be not truly felt until hundreds if not thousands of years from now. And if we fuck it up, they're really gonna feel it. So don't tell me nuclear waste isn't an issue. It's the biggest externality known to mankind, and that means the most ignored problem known to us too.


I’m fine with nuclear in theory, but it relies on being strictly regulated and being very careful with the waste and frankly, I don’t trust the US to not just let a billionaire operate a plant with no safety equipment and dump spent plutonium into the closest marginalized neighborhood.


Where are we going to store all of that nuclear waste the sun produces 🤡


I live in rural ohio.... there are anti-solar campaigns here. Literally signs and billboards protesting solar power.


This is the weird thing about nuclear power: it's always just used as a cudgel to attack renewables. But never forget, the real enemy is and always will be fossil fuels. Conservatives don't *actually* want nuclear. They'll talk a big game, but it's always only going to be talk. Unlike renewables which can just be plopped into the existing grid without much fuss, nuclear power requires a ton of top-down investment and political goodwill, and it likely won't happen without that. If anybody actually goes in on nuclear, that's when conservatives will start balking at the price tag, or suddenly become very concerned about safety, or whine that it's costing coal miners their jobs, or "the tech isn't there yet". Nuclear is the perfect scapegoat, because it's always a solution that's 30 years away. Giving token nuclear support means that means you don't have to actually change anything *now*.


Mf doesn’t know the difference of Fusion and Fission


You know itd be a funny joke, but I imagine these people are serious


Conservatives stop gaining critical thinking skills after eighth grade.


By his logic, shouldn't we still use solar instead of doing it ourselves. The right just wants to feel like they're different and more informed


Peak stupid.


Holy fuck half my brain died trying to understand the level of stupid in this tweet


This is what bad faith argument conservatives do. They remove context from an argument so they can "win" the argument based on incomplete information. Or just straight up strawman that shit.


He's right nuclear is just as ecological as solar but a lot easier to use


When it comes to green/clean energy, nuclear is our current best, and cleanest energy source atm. Too many get caught up in the past Chernobyl scare they forget to see that the tech back then was in its infancy and neglect to see how far and more safe we've come because of that disaster. The real point scientists and "the left" are making is coal is dirty and has been thoroughly studied to be a big problem, for us and our world's health. That's it, now lets do better. Gimme all types of Green Energy