• Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I have a Prius. Not for any stupid “I’m saving the planet despite still driving an ICE car” reasons, because I save a lot on gas.

    Doesn’t stop every “rollin’ coal” asshole from doing it when they drive by me because “haw haw dumb librul hippie.” You sure showed me by spending a lot more on gas than I do.

    • YAMAPIKARIYA@lemmyfi.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      Man I recently got a 2010 Prius off an auction. Very cheap purchase and it works great already getting savings on gas. But I did notice people have the urge to want to pass or take over when I’m in it even though I’m definitely going fast enough. Funny enough it doesn’t happen when I’m in my Miata going the same speed.

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I agree with this. I’m looking at a plug in hybrid for my next car. It’s a bit more costly up front, but day to day, it should save me so much. Hybrids are better, sure, but plugin hybrids can charge overnight, when we have remarkably low electricity costs where I live, especially overnight, so charging it up is trivial in costs, and it can run a good distance on the battery alone.

      If I want to go fast, and have fun, ICE cars and race tracks are things still, I can go do that. In the meantime, there’s still a speed limit on the freeway, so while your fuel burning monstrosity can go 200mph+… You can’t.

      For commuting/daily chores/errands, a plug in hybrid is easily one of the cheapest options available, especially for me, per mile driven (or kilometer, if you’re not American).

      I still want a weekend/fun car, but for daily driving, plug in hybrid is going to get me there for a lot less.

      With the prices of everything going up, it’s the only logical choice.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      You sure showed me by spending a lot more on gas than I do.

      The big difference is that trucking generates profit while car use is a personal cost. Rolling coal is negligible to a guy who probably doesn’t even own the rig in an industry where ROI on shipping is well above the cost of the fuel. Meanwhile, we’ve spent a long time dismantling our rail networks in order to profit the automotive industry.

      In the end of the day, everything is made deliberately less efficient in order to carve out more and more little profit-centers for middle men and profiteers. It might look stupid and inefficient to you, but to them its just a fringe benefit in an industry with literal money to burn.

    • someguy3@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Bbbeeee aaaafffffrrrraaaiiiiiddddddddddddd!1!!1!!!1!!!1!!1!!!1!!!

      C’mon. Chernobyl was like a drunk driver bypassing the blow device, and now you want to ban all cars everywhere for everyone and everything for eternity. Just to replace it with horses that kill even more people.

      • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        When I misuse a coal plant, it breaks down and potentially pollutes the vicinity. When I misuse a photovoltaic plant, it might get damaged. If I misuse a nuclear plant, an area becomes uninhabitable for centuries.

        But accidents are not the main concern, when there are currently nuclear power plants being held hostage in an ongoing war

        • someguy3@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          See you’re treating all nuclear plants and operation of those plants as the same. It’s not. Just like car designs are not the same as they were in 1950, nuclear plant designs are not the same as they were in the 1950s.

          You know Chernobyl was because they threw the operating procedure out the window right? But you want to act as if that’s just the normal operating procedure. And that it could just happen just because, just from normal operating or something. It’s insane.

          So you think the US, UK, France, Germany, etc etc etc nuclear plants will be taken hostage by Russians? See you’re on your fear campaign once again. Beee aaafffrraaaaiiiiddd!1!11!! That’s all it is.

          *Have to correct “misuse coal”. It’s not misuse, it’s use. Using coal guarantees polluting both locally and the entire planet.

  • Dreizehn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Anyone watch the 3 Mile Island documentary on Netflix? Indeed, Holy Shit! That was close, the cleanup was just as bad, and all for profit. The natural gas lobby killed the coal mining industry.

  • Ibuthyr@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    Most people who are against nuclear power, have the following reasons:

    • it’s the most expensive form of energy due to massive regulations
    • the power plants take way too long to build
    • nuclear waste is a problem, no one wants to have it buried near their homes
    • the fissile material is already rare and difficult to come by, mostly sourced from politically difficult regions, such as fucking Russia

    Nuclear power is not a solution.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      nuclear waste is a problem, no one wants to have it buried near their homes

      No one? My basement is available. Go right ahead and pay me and store it. I don’t want to hear a single person make this claim when I am inviting the industry to pay me for my basement.

      • jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        You jest, but long term nuclear waste storage really is a problem. The public at-large tends to get all NIMBY about it. In the 1980’s, the federal government was working on a long term underground storage facility in rural Nevada, near the Nevada Test Site (aka in the middle of fucking nowhere) and of course the locals threw a giant fit and got the project shut down. As a result, spent nuclear fuel is routinely held at naval shipyards and power plants around the country without a final destination.

        Not a good enough reason to not invest in nuclear power, but a problem nonetheless.

      • Ibuthyr@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I guess that’d work if you live in a very remote area, alone, without neighbors.

        • Forester@yiffit.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Anywhere that has the proper rock formations is a suitable long-term internment location. But as the other guy suggests, yeah you could stick it in his basement in a nuclear cask short term

    • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Russia is 12th in Uranium exports, with 0.001% of global exports. Kazakhstan is first at 59%, but there’s Canada with 30%, France with 8%, and the US with 2%. There’s plenty of politically easy Uranium, especially if people start buying it over Kazakhstan.

      India, Brazil, Australia, and the US are also slated to have the most Thorium resources, which could be a more significant nuclear fuel with modern and near-modern reactors.

    • Forester@yiffit.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      it’s the most expensive form of energy due to massive regulations

      So deregulate to the same standards Fossil Fuels are regulated at

      the power plants take way too long to build

      because of all of the red tape from your last point, as well as fossil fuel organized NIMBYS

      nuclear waste is a problem, no one wants to have it buried near their homes

      Again because disinformation spread by fossil fuel organized NIMBYS

      the fissile material is already rare and difficult to come by, mostly sourced from politically difficult regions, such as fucking Russia

      Breeder reactor

  • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    Also polluted ground water by nuclear waste which we have no way of safely storing and where we just say “let future generations deal with it”

  • BoscoBear@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    Rather than fission power choose fusion power delivered wirelessly to you house. Our space based fusion reactor can provide you with clean, reliable and inexpensive power today.

    Your friends at fusion electric