Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it’s actually pretty popular.

Do you have some that’s really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?

  • BynaD@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I find it insane that the same people who are anti-fossil fuel and want only green energy is also anti-nuclear power. I also want fossil fuels gone, but nuclear is the only way we are able to get to where we need to.

    • Ozymati@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      My only quibble with nuclear power is how irresponsible people are long term. The critical safety failure is always someone incompetent or cutting costs/corners.

      Well and that I think distributed generation is more robust. Natural disaster can’t take out power to half a state if there’s energy being generated and stored all over. The means of production in the hands of the consumers.

      • SouthernCanadian@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Statistically nuclear is by far the safest form of power generation. Of course, it would be good to locate it in areas that are not disaster prone. As far as I understand it though, the issue with nuclear is the cost. But in a perfect world we would need something to smooth out the inconsistency of renewables, either battery tech or something like nuclear that you can turn on and off as needed.

        • Ozymati@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Think less Fukushima and more Texas power grid.

          And yeah it is safe, but if it becomes unsafe for whichever reason, it becomes really unsafe. I just don’t trust humans to not eventually something stupid.

          • SouthernCanadian@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well the problem with the Texas power grid is that it exists in the first place. Still, when it comes to safety, you have to multiply how bad it is by the number of people it will affect, and divide by the amount of power generated to get the right picture. There is a media bias towards rare, intense events which causes people to think they are more common than they really are. This explains people’s views on nuclear power, school shootings, terrorism, shark attacks etc.

            • Ozymati@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              My views are based on knowing the kind of people who are missing fingers from overriding safety features but they still do it

            • MonkRome@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              And what happens in the unlikely event of system collapse? If some major cataclysmic event wiped out the world economy and half the worlds population, what happens when suddenly thousands of nuclear plants are abandoned and melt down world wide? Nuclear is safer in a vacuum, but we don’t exist in a vacuum. Anything that can happen, will eventually happen. Even if those power plants are able to be shut down safely, in a post stable world, the storage of the spent waste would be incredibly problematic as we would no longer have the capacity or knowledge to bury it 4 miles down. I would say that nuclear power is far more risky long term than people give it credit for. We are evaluating it’s risk only based on the present stability and regulations of our current systems. Modern technological stability is really a tiny blip in earths history, we really can’t guarantee a future that will know what to do with spent nuclear waste. Nuclear power is really an all-in bet on our own technological dominance of the future.

              I say this as someone that is not against nuclear power, but I think people view it as some sort of quick fix when it just presents it’s own problems. The truth is, you don’t get something for nothing. All energy costs something and that cost should be distributed between several systems and our consumption should be reduced.

        • BynaD@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Take a look at this video by real engineering. He talks about the future of nuclear power and is quite relevant to your “turn on and off as needed”.

          Forgot the Link

    • Muetzenman@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nuclear isn’t just benefits. There are major costs and risks. It’s sad how both sides are so ignorant to the arguments of the other side. And no one is an idiot to came to different conclusions.

    • val@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      wouldn’t say this is an unpopular opinion. many people share your pov

    • ChilledPeppers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      *it is one of the pieces of the puzzle. It is not renewable and generates trash that lasts thousands of years. It is another tool, and dismissing it is dumb, but it is not a silver bullet, and also isn’t that desirable for the long run.