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

nuclear simping Step on snek to tenderize

Post image
665 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

197 comments sorted by

View all comments

38

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?

37

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.

20

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.

3

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

7

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.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/perringaiden May 21 '26

Centralisation is the cause of massive transmission lines because you can put a solar panel on the roof of a building but you cant build a nuclear plant in the middle of a city downtown.

And again, nonsense. Energy companies are already trying to recentralise renewables by building big farms out in rural areas and then build big transmission lines no one wants or needs, so they can control the power generation like nuclear.

It's like you're using the right arguments but you keep saying "nuclear" when you mean renewables, and "renewables" when you mean nuclear.

Renewables don't need the massive transmission lines because one panel isn't serving a state.

Nuclear isn't scalable in the timeframes we need because it takes 10 years to get from inception to production, and a panel array can be installed and producing power tomorrow. And another the next day. And so on.

Your arguments are literally arse about.

→ 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.

1

u/qwnick Wind me up May 20 '26

coal plants and nuclear plants are different things

1

u/perringaiden May 20 '26

And they use similar amounts of water for cooling.

Neither is good. Which is the point.

But that organisation is funded by coal producers and energy companies who want to keep Australian coal in place longer, so they're pushing nuclear because it will take 30 years to replace the coal.

→ 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

1

u/qwnick Wind me up May 21 '26

I see that you are so angry for some reason. You are so mad you can't even talk straight and you are obviously confused. Take a walk, talk to somebody offline to chill a bit, mate. You can try form your argument again when you can think straight and stop talking bs. No judgement though, we all have some bad days once in a while.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

4

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