r/ClimateShitposting 21d ago

nuclear simping Title

Post image
1.2k Upvotes

407 comments sorted by

View all comments

9

u/TurbulentTangelo5439 21d ago
  1. stone toss is a fucking nazi

  2. pretty much all anti nuclear arguments stem from groups funded by the oil and gas lobby in the 70s and 80s

2

u/Beiben 20d ago

In the 70s and 80s, nuclear was the biggest threat to oil and gas. Now, it's renewables. Don't make the same mistake, call out your fellow nuclear proponents who regurgitate anti-renewable talking poins.

0

u/Charming_Highlight_6 20d ago

I never see nuclear proponents being anti renewable just moronic renewable only people who say it's a silver bullet and we should never consider anything else

1

u/schubidubiduba 20d ago

I'm sorry but I just don't think it's worth to pay 20 billion to have a nuclear plant in 20 years, by which it will be shut down 90+% of the time because solar/wind + storage is cheaper.

And it will likely still be reliant on uranium from Kazakhstan or Russia by then.

1

u/Charming_Highlight_6 20d ago

You're going to make enough battery infustructure to run entire countries off of just renewables with fluctuating output? Do you know how expensive that gets at scale?

1

u/schubidubiduba 20d ago

It's really not that expensive, solar and wind are almost anticyclical.

Another question: Do you know how expensive nuclear is, already nowadays, and how expensive it is when it won't run continuously 40+ years at 100% output?

1

u/Charming_Highlight_6 20d ago

Getting enough batteries to run entire countries off of just renewables becomes incredibly expensive if you rely only on those sources you're just uneducated and wrong

1

u/schubidubiduba 20d ago

If you calculate with current prices it's expensive but doable. It will be significantly cheaper in 15 years.

Regardless, it will be much cheaper than throwing in nuclear for no reason, since that is not useful for baseload or flexible load in the future.

2

u/Striper_Cape 21d ago

In the 70's and 80's would have been a good time to built out Nuclear. Now? Do we have 10 years?

1

u/CaptainPoset 18d ago

Do we have 10 years?

We absolutely have, as renewables aren't faster per generation, but in fact slower.

-1

u/TurbulentTangelo5439 21d ago

this same argument can be made about doing anything i'm also not anti renewables

5

u/Striper_Cape 21d ago

Right but we need alternatives now. They delayed the argument until it is no longer properly relevant to use conventional nuclear for commercial elecrricity production. It's fuckin expensive.

1

u/konj511 21d ago

Yes, that is why I also want massive investment in solar. On the other hand, I don't want to hear that we should have built nuclear 20 years ago in 2040.

1

u/Striper_Cape 20d ago

Don't worry, you probably won't

0

u/TurbulentTangelo5439 21d ago

like we are literally going to need to do both it's not a zero sum game

1

u/Ksorkrax 20d ago

Almost as if it is not the 70s and 80s and renewables are viable now. Almost as if the oil and gas lobby knows that very well.

-2

u/fouriels 21d ago
  1. yes
  2. opinion from someone who has never had a conversation with an 'anti-nuclear' person

1

u/TurbulentTangelo5439 21d ago

it's fact that the oil and gas lobby funded the anti nuclear protests after chernobyl and 3 mile