Technology

58303 readers

10 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

633

E-waste is growing 5x faster than it's recycled, says UN (www.theregister.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

153 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

If it was a realistic, affordable solution we’d be doing it.

No, if it wasn't lobbied against and fearmongered by oil and coal, public sentiment would support it and funding would go along with it. If you think it's cheaper to throw massive solar panels into every open field and that we'd get anywhere approaching the energy a nuclear power plant could produce then you've lost the plot.

it isn’t just paranoia about nuclear accidents.

Yes it is.

Building a nuclear plant takes ten years minimum and it’s incredibly expensive,

The energy output offsets the cost faster than alternatives and if we started ten years ago we'd have them by now. Not starting right now because you think it's too late is the reason they weren't built a decade ago. Some kind of fuckin reverse sunk cost fallacy with you people. Also, ten years minimum? Some have been built in three years.

The issue of waste from solar is real, but the fact is even with that waste it’s done far more to reduce emissions than nuclear ever has or ever could.

Dumbest shit you've said in this post so I'm glad you left it till last. Since 1971 Nuclear Power is estimated to have prevented 64 trillion gigatons of carbon emissions. To put it into perspective, that's the amount the United States would generate if we powered ourselves completely with coal for 35 years. The positive climate impact of nuclear is so incomprehensibly superior to renewables that your stance against it isn't just stupid - it's costing lives.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

It’s hilarious how utterly delusional you are lol. Yeah you go ahead and keep telling yourself that an oil industry conspiracy is pushing renewables over nuclear and not the fundamental economics of the situation. Nuclear isn’t and never will be a realistic solution to climate change.

Also— your own article states that the fastest nuclear reactors were built in Japan. Well guess what, that’s bizarr because Japan skirted all kinds of safety practices to build their reactors and that’s how you get garbage plants like Fukushima. All of the new reactors getting built now are planned for ten years or more, which your article also confirms.

And no, you are blatantly wrong that only paranoia is getting in the way of nuclear. Countries aren’t building nuclear because it makes no fucking sense when you can generate the same amount of power for far cheaper with renewables. Renewables are also serving as the baseline power source all around the world and they do the job just fine. Nuclear isn’t needed.

It’s obvious you’re just another rude, know-it-all douchebag who is actually far more ignorant on this topic than you realize. Straight to my blocked list.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

I've long since lost patience with idiots, especially ones that resort to blocking when they're wrong. Take care o/