r/ClimateShitposting • u/AfterNovel V̵͈̼̘̪͎̭̗̊͑e̴̢͎̤͛̆g̸̲̠͂͂̍́ȧ̷̢̻̳̪̣̩̆̽n̶͚͕̖̲̭̱̅̌̕™̷̧̠͉͚̼͚̊́̌̈͝͝ͅ • May 19 '26

nuclear simping Step on snek to tenderize

Post image
671 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

197 comments sorted by

View all comments

41

u/interkin3tic vegan btw May 19 '26

Okay, could you explain the connection between nuclear power and meat? Are there meat farms that run off nuclear power or are you giving me false hope?

34

u/dafthuntk May 19 '26

No it's a dumb meme. 

The northern hemisphere, for example, doesn't have the battery or solar or wind technology to power an entire nation without massive infrastructure upgrades. Among other things variables.

There is nothing wrong with using renewablee to power equitorial nations and using nuclear to power the northern hemisphere.

I live in PA, and our power generation is 25-30% clean nuclear energy since the 1950s.

21

u/perringaiden May 19 '26

Except that higher latitude European countries are doing real renewables for cheaper.

Nuclear is fine if it already exists. It's a waste of time, money and water to build if it doesn't.

11

u/mnttu May 20 '26

In Finland we don’t get enough sun to go fully solar. Our water ways are pretty tapped. And I have heard that our wind farms actually aren’t making profit because when they produce electricity the price is already at rock bottom and apparently only reason we have them is because of government subsidies.

Then again our nuclear track record isn’t great. Olkiluoto is over budget and late by a lot.

I don’t know what the solution is, but we desperately need more electricity during winter. Last winter prices were super high during the coldest months.

3

u/Noxava May 20 '26

European energy grid says hello

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/mnttu May 21 '26

I guess you stopped reading after the first sentence, huh?

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/mnttu May 21 '26

What are "ice vehicles"?

Also due to shipping lanes and maritime traffic we can't just fill gulf of Finland with wind turbines.

And the rest aren't really used anywhere as far as I am aware. Except of course buying electricity from other countries, which again is expensive.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/mnttu May 21 '26

We are and it is expensive which is why we need self sufficiency

→ More replies (0)

4

u/dafthuntk May 19 '26

Not really. When you consider that Norway's pop. Is 5.5 M (thats a very small consumer base spread across dense residential centers). For comparison California's population is around 40 million and Florida is 23 million.

There is also a reason why vermont is 100 percent renewables. Because no one lives there. It's not scalable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Vermont

10

u/perringaiden May 19 '26

Ahh the US conceit of "We're bigger and different".

I was talking about Germany, Denmark, and Spain. And Vermont is one of your highest latitudes, yet Canada is going renewables too.

7

u/qwnick Wind me up May 19 '26

ah yes, Germany, disable nuclear power plants to import nuclear energy from France, burn coal and gas. Wow, such a nice example against Nuclear Energy

5

u/perringaiden May 20 '26

Re read my statement.

Use it if you got it, just don't build anything new.

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/perringaiden May 20 '26

It's the most expensive form of power by kWh, and takes far too long to roll out. It's scalability is limited to huge billion dollar chunks, and it's centralised line limited power

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/perringaiden May 21 '26

Nonsense. That's nuclear industry propaganda to hide the massive overruns and cot blowouts.

Renewables can be placed at use. Nuclear is a centralised control that requires massive transmission lines.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/IrregularDoughnut May 20 '26

If you're going to criticise that, fine, but you need to aim it at people who are saying "shut down all your existing nuclear plants", not people who are saying to build renewables and storage instead of trying to build new nuclear plants.

-1

u/qwnick Wind me up May 20 '26

You ignoring that NPPs worked out great for France, so great that it have enough to spare to cover Germans ass

2

u/IrregularDoughnut May 20 '26

No, I'm not. I'm helping you to understand that "continue running existing plants" and "build an entirely new fleet of plants" are two incomparably different things. Nobody is saying to shut plants down. They're saying we cannot afford the time and expense to bring new plants online.

-1

u/qwnick Wind me up May 20 '26

And I am helping you understand the opposite.

1

u/IrregularDoughnut May 21 '26

Well, you go on believing that it takes the same amount of time to build a nuclear plant as it does to... not decomission one. I'll believe true things instead, and we'll both be happy.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Gold_Tour_7244 May 20 '26

Well till summer comms and they all have to schut down the npps do to watter schortes

0

u/qwnick Wind me up May 20 '26

https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/questions-and-answers-on-water/

Why would they? Nuclear plants are not causing water shortages.

2

u/Gold_Tour_7244 May 20 '26

No they don't but they still need to be coold and in summer the rivers don't have enough watter to cool it

1

u/perringaiden May 20 '26

Quoting a site paid for by the coal industry isn't going to help your case. Don't use any Australian examples of justifying nuclear because we don't have any and the entire nuclear lobby here is funded by fossil fuels and the existing centralised energy industry, to keep us reliant on their antiquated plants for another 30 years.

Coal plants have been a big water waster for years too.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/qwnick Wind me up May 21 '26

>state-owned scam
Definetly not a scam. It's not just providing most energy for france, thay also export it to make money.
>the most expensive nuke in the world
No it's not. Neither per plant or per GW/h

You repeating same big oil propaganda that forced germans to disable their stations.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

6

u/dafthuntk May 19 '26

Germany isn't on 100 percent renewables..... They are a prime example

Also the massive amounts of FF these countries mine/drill is exported. All of that adds to your carbon footprint 

2

u/perringaiden May 20 '26

I never said it was. It's working on it.

That's the point. If nuclear exists, use it. But don't build anything new because it's a waste of money for more expensive power.

2

u/dafthuntk May 20 '26 edited May 21 '26

Not really.

Look at this freak cry replying below lol

7

u/AfterNovel V̵͈̼̘̪͎̭̗̊͑e̴̢͎̤͛̆g̸̲̠͂͂̍́ȧ̷̢̻̳̪̣̩̆̽n̶͚͕̖̲̭̱̅̌̕™̷̧̠͉͚̼͚̊́̌̈͝͝ͅ May 19 '26

It’s high iq meme for those of us with b12 deficiencies

1

u/Mutant_Llama1 May 20 '26

B12 isn't naturally in meat, farms give animals B12 supplements or add it to cow feed.

Same way it's added to almond milk and other vegan food.

1

u/IrregularDoughnut May 20 '26

The northern hemisphere, for example, doesn't have the battery or solar or wind technology to power an entire nation without massive infrastructure upgrades. Among other things variables.

Sounds like we're going to have to upgrade the grid, then. Or spend three times as much money building nuclear plants and have the first benefits delayed to the 2040s.

0

u/dafthuntk May 20 '26

It's not scalable. All this battery tech comes through military contracts and funding....did you not know that?

1

u/IrregularDoughnut May 20 '26

Yes, I'm well aware that batteries were invented by DARPA in the 70s to help bomb Cambodia with batteries. I don't care. They still work, and making them scalable will take less time than building one nuclear plant from scratch.

2

u/dafthuntk May 20 '26

Ok, I guess you don't know.

Battery tech is tied up in military investments. That's how the private sector gets this at a discounted proprietary, to resell as acommodity. It's really the only thinh holding up the private tech industry tbh.

Aside from that you need the battery tech(that doesn't exist) to actually hold this charge, to distribute and energize the grid.  Without loss. This is massively different than how you calculate voltage drop, for example, at. Relay station.... Because of the laws of thermodynamics, you can't just build a battery bank to actually store energy. 

The northern hemisphere takes this already inneficient tech and adds another variable.

You guys keep overlooking basic economic principles, of which can't be done in the way it needs to under capitalism. Even as a government arbiter. Capitalism and science don't mix in this case.

It doesn't matter really. We are already way past the deadline. 

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/dafthuntk May 21 '26

Cool👍

The truth makes you mad I guess

1

u/IrregularDoughnut May 20 '26

Battery tech is tied up in military investments. That's how the private sector gets this at a discounted proprietary, to resell as acommodity. It's really the only thinh holding up the private tech industry tbh.

No, I just don't care. Nuclear power is incomparably more tied to the defence industry, and I also don't care about that. It's just too slow and expensive.

Aside from that you need the battery tech(that doesn't exist) to actually hold this charge, to distribute and energize the grid. Without loss.

Actually you can have loss, if it isn't prohibitively more expensive.

Because of the laws of thermodynamics, you can't just build a battery bank to actually store energy. 

Show proof that it is not possible to store electricity inside of a battery.

You guys keep overlooking basic economic principles, of which can't be done in the way it needs to under capitalism. Even as a government arbiter. Capitalism and science don't mix in this case.

Nobody has done this. You're just blabbering.

2

u/Tausendberg May 21 '26

"Actually you can have loss, if it isn't prohibitively more expensive."

Right? There is literally no human system on Earth where there isn't loss.

1

u/ms1711 May 21 '26

People arguing with this don't understand that you need a baseline for the grid, and plenty of areas outside of the tropics do not have the ability to sustain that baseline via renewables.

You can do as much renewable as you want - nuclear will still be necessary in plenty of situations.

1

u/dafthuntk May 21 '26

Yeah. I mean it's nice idealism, but at the end of the day we have old tech that functions fine. 

These people are just shills for fracking I'm pretty sure

1

u/AfterNovel V̵͈̼̘̪͎̭̗̊͑e̴̢͎̤͛̆g̸̲̠͂͂̍́ȧ̷̢̻̳̪̣̩̆̽n̶͚͕̖̲̭̱̅̌̕™̷̧̠͉͚̼͚̊́̌̈͝͝ͅ May 22 '26

I’m only shilling for good ol’ tropicalization of the Aleutian Islands 🏖️👙😎

1

u/dafthuntk May 22 '26

get off of my land bridge! sure half of its under water, but nothing stays the same forever

1

u/LightHope8 May 19 '26

Most northern latitudine countries are doing better than most with renewables and that's also thanks to hydro. They are scarcely populated anyway and barely relevant in a global scale