Russia has reportedly made a sinister threat to the West by suggesting it could attack nuclear power plants in retaliation for any strike on its own sites

  • Insekticus@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 days ago

    Okay, I’ll admit I was being a facetious when I said nuclear explosion.

    That being said, it’s still a non-renewable energy source that produces incredibly toxic waste that lasts tens of thousands of years that nobody wants to keep or store nor has any way of effectively making safe except storing it in bunkers underground for tens of thousands of years, which is stupid, impractical, short-sighted at best and incredibly dangerous at worst.

    Also, Absolutely nobody wants to live near a nuclear power plant. Why bother having them take up room if you can’t live or farm near them.

    Why leave the means of production in the hands of capitalist scum that will ask for billions to keep the plants maintained on top of the energy tarrifs we pay, only keep the money, and still let the facilities crumble, when I can just install solar panels in my own house and not pay for any electricity? Sounds kinda dumb to go for nuclear at that point.

    I can’t confirm if it’s the most energy dense, but even if that’s true, it can still trigger meltdowns that leave kilometer-wide radii of uninhabitable radioactivity dead-zones like around Chernobyl.

    As far as I’m concerned, anybody still promoting this technology is so deeply entrenched in their own self- aggrandizement because nuclear energy sounds cool that they can’t grow up and realise other technologies outcompeted nuclear on a number of metrics, decades ago.

    Also, I know that this will continue to get downvoted because there are so so so many people who have made nuclear energy part of their personality and absolutely cannot critically self-reflect on the topic.

    Nuclear fusion or no nuclear at all.

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      Okay, I’ll admit I was being a facetious when I said nuclear explosion.

      You don’t have to act like you didn’t mean what you said. It’s okay to admit you were wrong.

      • Insekticus@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        It’s so telling that this is the only part you responded to.

        Can’t fault any of my other claims for the failure of nuclear, so you have to resort ad hominems - you nukecels are laughable.

        • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          Do you know what an ad hominem actually is? Telling someone that it’s okay to admit you are wrong is not an attack on you as a person.

          • Insekticus@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 days ago

            It is when you’re on your high horse telling me that I’m allowed to admit that I’m wrong when I wasn’t wrong and being facetious.

            You’ve made assumptions about my intentions and intelligence and tried to negate discussion without addressing any of my claims.

            It is an attack on my intelligence rather than my argument, so it’s an ad hominem.