World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
GOOD. BUILD MORE. The newer generations of nuclear plants can recycle their own waste and are basically meltdown proof. It's a no brainer. Shit is literally alchemy magic.
For the haters: https://youtu.be/5WKQsr9v2C0
Still (way) more expensive than just building cheap renewables.
Air and wind are inexpensive insofar as they have a low LCOE, but are intermittent, so require being coupled with energy storage, and that is not inexpensive.
If you're talking hydropower or geothermal, then they don't have the intermittency issue (well, hydro does, but to a far lesser degree), but both are subject to the geography of the area. They aren't available to everyone.
EDIT: And in the case of hydropower, there are also some environmentalists unhappy about the impact on river systems, since dams inevitably have at least some impact on river ecosystems, even if you build those fish channels.
EDIT2: "Fishway" or "fish ladder".
EDIT3: In fairness, for some uses, intermittency isn't such a big issue. That is, you may have an industrial process that you can only run when energy is available. So, for example, the Netherlands used to do this (sans electricity) with their windpumps in the process of poldering. That's not free
if you want your pumps to run only a third of the time on average, then you need triple the pumping capacity
but for some things like that, where the process is basically the pumping side of pumped hydrostorage, it might be cheaper than providing constant operation with a non-intermittent power source.
But for an awful lot of uses, people just want electricity to be available when they flip the switch.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20241113-will-chinas-ultra-high-voltage-grid-pay-off-for-renewable-power
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity_transmission_in_China
Ideally we'd be doing/improving on something like this where modern nuclear plants can make up for gaps in renewables.
First, AIR and wind?
Second, yes they are intermittent but that's not an argument in favour of nuclear. Pairing intermittent sources and sources that need to run at full power 24/7 to be economic isn't a good match.
Solar and wind, sorry.
Sure it is. It's just not an argument in favor of using nuclear as a peaking source to fill in the gaps for solar and wind intermittency.
+120% cancer in children in the area...so worth it.
This is for the older plants. The newer plants are fundamentally different (Gen 3+). There are ways to mitigate these things.
in theory. yet show me one....
my numbers say sth. different
https://www.bund.net/fileadmin/user_upload_bund/publikationen/atomkraft/20220927_BASK_Papier_Unsichbare_Opfer_der_Atomkraftnutzung.pdf
I don't speak German. Generation 3+ only came into use in the West in the last 5-10 years. China has over 150 planned for a reason, watch the link I already provided. They are fundamentally built to avoid the accidents of the past. The standards set by the Chinese on this meet Western standards, hell, they are selling the tech to us.
Overview: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/advanced-nuclear-power-reactors
Environmental impacts of Gen 3: https://scholar.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/api/records/9ca88a42-f3ec-47ff-bdf4-fe085a817713/file/0fa0df8ea85e422dc87b706749f77aa6578e7be0cce2b38b5ff2ffaad8c41809.pdf
A bit behind the development of safety: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
More on China, because the YT link already covers this stuff:
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/energy-research/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2023.1147016/full
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258900422500183X
and those convince you? you think these are prone to war, human error, terror etc?
You obviously haven't read these or watched that video as that's covered. It's literally physics.
you re still not getting the point.
name (like write out the word) a successful new plant or an old plant thats safe.
all i hear from you is chinese propaganda
TIL the University of Illinois is Chinese propaganda. There's a list of them in the wikipedia, but you're not arguing in good faith lmao.
look at britains failed attempt to build a v3 reactor that pays off. you still think what americans say is worth a dime anywhere on the planet. fuck em.
Name (like write out the word) a new plant that isn't safe.
Every power source has issues. Installing solar panels onto houses is more dangerous than nuclear. Large scale solar is safer, though not significantly, and thar includes all nuclear disasters of the past, and it also doesn't include waste that we'll have to deal with in the future like we're already doing with nuclear.
read the damn study.
I don't speak German.
All sources of power cause some amount of harm. Is it comparing it to other sources? Coal power plants throw radioactive waste into the air. Is it worse than that? I doubt it.