News

I've always been pro nuclear. But what I've come to understand is that nuclear accidents are traumatizing. Anybody alive in Europe at the time was psychologically damaged by Chernobyl. Don't forget also that the elder Xers and older worldwide lived under the specter of nuclear annihilation.

So you've got rational arguments vs. visceral fear. Rationality isn't up to it. At the end of the day, the pronuclear side is arguing to trust the authorities. Being skeptical of that is the most rational thing in the world. IDK how to fix this, I'm just trying to describe the challenge pronuclear is up against.

I beg you Lemmy, dont be like a redditor that just reads the purposefully inflammatory headlines and gets mad over it. Always assume a headline is supposed to get a specific emotional response from you and read the article.

For this one the environmental concerns people had were not about carbon emissions, they were about groundwater contamination

It faced a constant barrage of criticism over safety concerns, however, particularly around the leaking of radioactive material into groundwater and for harm caused to fish when the river’s water was used for cooling.

The plant as well as NYs other plants that face a lot of criticism were built in the 60s long before much of the modern saftey measures and building techniques that make Modern reactors so safe. And thats why they were decommissioned, they were almost 60 years old and way past their initial life span. Not because of "Dumb environmental activists think taking nuclear power offline will decrease carbon emissions" like whoever wrote this headline is trying to get you to assume.

You are not immune to propaganda.

Modern nuclear technology is much safer than older stuff, additionally when the older plants are well maintained they are much safer than they're made out to be.

This is one of those cases where pop culture doesn't match reality and as a result people who are half informed do more damage to their cause by rejecting the good in pursuit of the great.

You can't claim to be an environmentalist and be anti-nuclear energy at the same time.

Hard to imagine how anyone who's concerned about climate change could see shutting down a carbon-free energy source as a "green win".

So unexpected !

environmentalists who had long demanded it be scrapped.

That doesn’t sound right, it’s fossil fuel simps that are anti-nuclear

More likely they wanted it to be updated

Fucking anti nuclear dipshits.

The term environmentalist has so much stupid baggage tied to it.

I’m tired of having to share labels with people who refuse to do anything other than small superficial personal choices. Folks who will baulk at the suggestion of a carbon tax, their energy bills going up, more nuclear plants being built near them or, subsidies and infrastructure for low income people who are seriously hurt by such changes.

This is a systemic problem that requires systemic changes that will fundamentally alter things we take for granted right now. It’s going to suck and it’s going to be hard, there is no easy simple way out.

I see this as a failure to build renewables. Wind and solar and batteries are and were able to solve this, but changing infrastructure costs time, money and skill. The closing of the NPP was foreseeable, so is the climate change.

Their 40 year license with the nuclear regulatory commission ran out and they felt that getting it relicensed was too expensive. Yeah a bunch of folks were hyperbolic about it, but holding a 40 year old reactor to modern standards isn't bad either. It's still economics that is holding nuclear back.

Nuclear power is among the most "green" power sources around. The simple fact that this debate exists shows a lack of education surrounding the whole thing.

The people who wanted it shut down talked about local safety issues like groundwater contamination. Green advocates generally understand that nuclear is better for CO2 and it's dumb to shut them down. Feel like the article is muddying the issue by using 'green' to mean multiple things.

Germany enters the chat.

lets take bets. Was it scheduled decommissioning? i.e. EOL shutdown If so this entire article is kind of redundant. (it still serves a point in bringing awareness but it's still funny)

Who would think that's a green victory?

why the fuck do people still think nulcear energy is bad for the environment? it scales easily enough to displace coal and gas and petrol.

I'll buy "How can you do the right thing in the wrong way?" for $1000