this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2026
756 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

89099 readers
3852 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 4 points 20 minutes ago

You mean we can make FREE ENERGY in our BACKYARD for almost NO Money? This is TERRIBLE!

-LITERALLY Conservatives!

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 59 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Turns out we already have fusion power, it's just been placed safely 149.6 million km away. The solution to energy independence comes up every morning.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 4 points 1 hour ago (4 children)

All energy comes from the sun except for geothermal which comes from the Earth's rotational momentum which might as well be the sun because it wouldn't rotate without something to orbit around.

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 6 points 35 minutes ago

Technically nuclear came from a different star. The sun won't create those kinds of heavier elements until it burns through its hydrogen and helium fuel to start fusing its way up to lead, and I don't think it's massive enough to actually reach the kind of supernova collapse required to smash lesser elements together into heavier elements than that in any significant amount. So technically, fission is the only the form of energy that isn't based on solar. It's just the still-cooling-embers leftover from someone else's dying star, a whole bunch of billions of years ago. I guess you could say the sun's gravity at least attracted it all into this general vicinity though, at least until the Earth's own gravity started pulling its own weight.

[–] Felis_Catus_Domesticus@lemmy.world 1 points 22 minutes ago

except for geothermal which comes from the Earth’s rotational momentum

emm that is not the source of geothermal energy..

[–] Felis_Catus_Domesticus@lemmy.world 1 points 26 minutes ago* (last edited 22 minutes ago)

geothermal which comes from the Earth’s rotational momentum

umm.. that is not the source of geothermal energy..

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Didn't the molten core also originate in some way from the sun?

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 points 52 minutes ago
[–] pr0sp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 49 minutes ago (2 children)

You mean a Dyson Sphere right?

[–] Equinox1289@sh.itjust.works 2 points 34 minutes ago

Dyson swarms would be more feasible. Heat rejection on a sphere would give an engineer a complete meltdown.

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 1 points 33 minutes ago

First a Dyson Ring; have you read any of the Ringworld series by David Niven? And for the time being solar panels, solar architecture, cardboard solar fucking ovens, solar deathray from a satellite dish, etc, etc, etc.....

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 42 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (14 children)

While I consider myself pro nuclear, there is something that gets forgotten everytime this conversation comes up.

Nuclear produces waste, which is mentioned often but it is usually responded by pointing out that it could be recycled and the worse to be buried.

Here is what people miss:

Are all our nuclear waste handled correctly today? If not then why should we imply that they will be in the future.

The problem with nuclear isn’t that the waste is impossible to handle, it’s that humans are too short sighted to follow through with it.

And imo that’s a very valid argument on why we should use solar as much as we can.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 8 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Being pro-nuclear was a very valid position up until a few years ago. Now solar has gotten so cheap that there is practically no reason to do it except to protect yourself against US imperialism.

[–] nforminvasion@lemmy.world 1 points 8 minutes ago

You do realize that you can support multiple things? You don't have to be antinuclear to be pro-solar.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 14 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

While I consider myself pro nuclear, there is something that gets forgotten everytime this conversation comes up.

The problem with nuclear isn’t that the waste is impossible to handle, it’s that humans are too short sighted to follow through with it.

Thats not even the biggest problem with nuclear power as the waste angle, at scale, will hit us decades in the future. The more urgent problem hitting us now on even on existing deployed nuclear plants is cooling water.

The byproduct of nuclear power generation is lots AND LOTS of waste heat. You have to get rid of this every second to continue to produce electricity. This is why nuclear power plants are typically built next to a large body of water. However, with reduced water supplies in reseviors theres less water to use for cooling nuclear plants. A double whammy is with climate change increasing temperatures, the water that remains is already hotter than it was, meaning it can carry away even less heat.

If a plant can't get rid of its heat it needs to curtail (reduce) electricity production. This isn't just theoretical. Its happening now in 2026 to existing power plants:

At the time when Europe was experiencing its worst heatwave is recorded history, many European reactors had to be turned down or off. 2026 isn't the first time this has happened either, you can go back in the last 5 years or so and see many reports of nuclear plant curtailment because of lack of cooling capacity (cool water).

When we know global temperature are rising, it looks like this will just get worse. How can we say nuclear is the future when the conditions for it working well are already declining?

[–] Fartemis@lemmy.zip 2 points 53 minutes ago

Fuck, that’s a terrifying thought. Bring on the panic attacks! Yay!

[–] vatlark@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

To the disposal argument i like to ask; are we handling our waste from burning fossil fuels well?

Is run away climate change "doing it well"?

Would you rather your waste be buried in the ground or pumped into the atmosphere?

Containing the waste and burying it in the ground is the default for nuclear, meanwhile doing the same for CO2 is very challenging and it may never be viable.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

But we are comparing solar to nuclear.

Being better than fossil fuels is a pretty low bar.

And yes better nuclear than oil but the whole thing about nuclear is that it has a very delayed start time, so the argument of needing it ASAP supports solar if anything.

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The fact is that humans are just not well equipt to deal with problems beyond human scales.

We're not good at accurately assessing risks beyond human time scales and we're not good correctly prioritizing action when the benefit is beyond human time scales.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 4 points 56 minutes ago

Big Oil predicted global warming pretty spot on, they just fought it and hid the findings instead.

To some extent I think we've gotten pretty good at long term predictions on things like this, but no one wants to hear it.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›