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

Technology

89137 readers
3760 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
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 56 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (24 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.

[–] vatlark@lemmy.world 9 points 11 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 16 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 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.

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip 90 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

Technically solar power is nuclear power ☝️🤓

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 38 points 16 hours ago (12 children)

All power is solar power if you go deep enough. Or to be more accurate, stellar power.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 33 points 14 hours ago (10 children)

Averaging nuclear over the entire world really doesn't give it a fair shake, since there are many jurisdictions that won't build nuclear capacity for political and societal-preference reasons, rather than technical ones. Where I am, the percentage of electricity supplied by nuclear power plants is more than five times what's supplied by solar and wind combined, and we're doing just fine (and building out more nuclear in addition to more renewables).

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 14 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

Nuclear is slow. Solar is fast.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 3 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

Nuclear has been slow, for a variety of reasons, but that is about to change.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Modular reactors are fast. Ontario will have three online in 2 years.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 7 points 11 hours ago

Solar is fast and getting better continuously. The new battery technologies like Sodium Ion are eliminating the downsides to it. We just need a big battery shack on every block with safe sodium battery storage and solar panels on all the house roofs.

[–] Buckshot@programming.dev 16 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

In UK in 2010, 10 new nuclear plants were announced. Since then 5 older plants have been shut leaving us with 5 active. 1 of the 10 new ones started construction and it's massively over budget and delayed.

In the same time we've added about 20GW of solar.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Hegar@fedia.io 179 points 21 hours ago (28 children)

Nuclear plants - with high start-up costs, national security risks and high output - will always require concentrating large amounts of power in few hands.

Solar has much greater potential for decentralization.

Greater inequality results in a worse society in just about every imaginable way. And nuclear will always encourage that more than solar.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Solar has much greater potential for decentralization.

Not when we buy all our panels from China.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›