this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2025
151 points (90.8% liked)

World News

40513 readers
3448 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

China is rapidly surpassing the U.S. in nuclear energy, building more reactors at a faster pace and developing advanced technologies like small modular reactors and high-temperature gas-cooled units.

The U.S. struggles with costly, delayed projects, while China benefits from state-backed financing and streamlined construction.

This shift could make China the leading nuclear power producer within a decade, impacting global energy and geopolitical influence.

Meanwhile, the U.S. seeks to revive its nuclear industry, but trade restrictions and outdated infrastructure hinder progress.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fossil fuels are killing this planet before your very eyes.

And the only way to save it is nuclear power? Every thread about this topic makes it look this way.

Thing is: Fossil fuels are killing our planet NOW. Spending 10+ years to build a new state-of-the-art nuclear power plant is simply too slow. Just take the money and dump it into technology that's already available at short notice: Solar, wind, geothermal and tons and tons of battery storage. I'm not sure about the situation in other countries, but here in Germany there isn't even a permanent storage site for the nuclear waste we ALREADY produced let alone one for which we'd produce in the future.

Additional factor for not going nuclear in Europe: Do you know which country exports the most fissile material around us? It starts with an R and ends with ussia.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And the only way to save it is nuclear power?

Not sure where you got this from what's written there

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Not sure, maybe from the posts where everybody argues that Nuclear is so much better than coal but totally missing the point that yes, it's better than coal, but so much worse than renewables.

  • Huge upfront costs
  • Long build time (We need to get CO2 down now!)
  • Waste disposal time measured in aeons.
  • Risk of contamination (again for aeons)
    • Yes, coal kills more people, but
      1. Scale our usage of nuclear power by 100 and watch the casualties scale as well.
      2. That's not the frigging point. We want to get rid of coal ANYWAY. The question is which one is better: Fossil nuclear or renewables.
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The question is which one is better: Fossil nuclear or renewables.

Both, whatever we can build faster, whatever makes it easier to reduce coal and oil. It shouldn't be an either-or decision. Also, nuclear is not a fossil fuel, you can debate if it is renewable or not, but nuclear fuel is not made from compressed organic matter.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 day ago

Both, whatever we can build faster, whatever makes it easier to reduce coal and oil. It shouldn't be an either-or decision.

You are kind of contradicting yourself. Because in both aspects nuclear energy looses to renewables: They are faster and less complex to build. Easier to maintain and dispose of if necessary.

Also, nuclear is not a fossil fuel, you can debate if it is renewable or not, but nuclear fuel is not made from compressed organic matter.

Ok, if you want to split hairs, yes nuclear energy is not fossil but also then there are also no renewables because the energy in the universe is for all we know finite.