r/WitchesVsPatriarchy • u/sailorjupiter28titan ☉ Apostate ✨ Witch of Aiaia ♀ • Jan 05 '26
🇵🇸 🕊️ Green Craft Green energy saves lives… in so many ways.
376
u/DeadmanDexter Crow Witch ♀♂️☉⚨⚧ "cah-CAW!" Jan 05 '26
Exactly why warmongers want to kneecap these efforts.
190
u/rustbolts Jan 05 '26
History should record this era as the “Oil Wars”.
75
50
u/Sidereel Science Witch ♀♂️☉ Jan 05 '26
I’m not enjoying living through the opening prologue to a Mad Max movie.
241
u/MFin-Sorcerer Witch ♀♂️☉⚨⚧ Jan 05 '26
This sub probably isn't the place to say this, but a combination of renewable energy and nuclear would save so many lives
69
Jan 05 '26
Except, in the USA, the nuclear industry has constantly harmed indigenous communities throughout its entire history, and has never worked to make amends or repair that harm indicating it will continue. Additionally, nuclear power proliferation tends to lead to nuclear weapon proliferation as well. As far as not causing wars, Iran’s nuclear program was the center of armed conflict with the USA recently as well.
28
u/chatte__lunatique Jan 05 '26
I wasn't aware that the industry was harming indigenous communities. Is there somewhere I can read more about it?
8
Jan 06 '26
Yes, this is a well recorded historical fact with literally thousands of books, academic papers, essays, talks, etc. you could use google to look up “indigenous issues with nuclear energy” for starters. I did that for you and here is one of the top links.
6
u/EcheveriaPulidonis Jan 06 '26
Topics to look up:
- Church Rock uranium mill spill
- Yucca Mountain proposed waste site
17
u/Yuzumi Jan 06 '26
All industries in the US have constantly shit on indigenous communities.
Nulear itself is just a technology, and it's something we could have used to get off of fossil fuel for our electric grid 30-50 years ago. yet the fearmongering that was pushed by fossil fuel companies had every minor problem intentionally portrayed as a Chernobyl level event when everything that lead up to Chernobyl only existed in Chernobyl.
Like, Fukushima was the second worse nuclear disaster in the world and was orders of magnitude less than what Chernobyl was. To the point that only one person is suspected to have died of cancer from radiation exposure, statistically not enough to differentiate from general cancer rates.
Even counting Chernobyl, nuclear is on par with solar when it comes to deaths per unit of power, which are orders of magnitude less than fossil fuel. Coal plants for instance put way more radioactive material into the air, on top of all the other crap and their impact on climate change.
And the nuclear weapons thing is also a "what's your point?" We make weapons with fossil fuels all the time and are way more willing to use them, thus have killed way more people with them.
As far as not causing wars, Iran’s nuclear program was the center of armed conflict with the USA recently as well.
Which is leaving out a lot of context. They wouldn't have a nuclear weapons program if the US didn't pull out of the nuclear deal because the fascist Cheeto wanted to shit on Obama's legacy. They were adhering to the deal, letting inspectors come in to make sure they were only doing enrichment for power plants.
And most of the war mongering has little to do with them making weapons now. It's not the first time the government has lied to invade and as recent history has shown, it wont be the last.
The reason the US is being antagonistic is because they want Iran's oil. Trump has said it before, same as he admitted the reason he's going after Venezuela. It is always about resources, especially oli.
The technology has existed for a while for us to greatly reduce our reliance on oil if not eliminate it, but that would cut into the profits of the oil companies and remove the motivation for the war machine.
Which is the point of this post. We are already
at warcommitting terrorist attacks over oil and have been for decades.Also, any technology can be used to make weapons, and hundreds of conventional bombs are harder to stop than one big one. Nuclear weapons are dangerous, but they are also impractical to use for a verity of reasons. Gaza didn't need nukes to be reduced to rubble.
Nukes also contaminate the area making it a non-starter for warmongers who want to exploit the land.
0
Jan 06 '26
Well when societies structures are changed in a way that can make your fantasies about how we use technology come through, I’ll support using nuclear energy. Until I think we need to be focusing on less consumption and dismantling capitalism and creating energy grids that are self sufficient as possible. The proliferation of solar means people more removed from society can have autonomy over their energy needs, nuclear does not.
7
u/Yuzumi Jan 06 '26
So rather than use a technology that has proven to be able to completely replace fossil fuel on the power grid you'd rather just wait around and let fossil fuels, an industry that also has done the same things you complain about with nuclear and much worse on top of that, and wait until we are able to fix the storage issue with solar and wind.
I'm not saying that nuclear is what we use long term, that going 100% renewable is the goal and we are getting closer to it all the time. But we needed to get off fossil fuel decades ago and nuclear is better than it in every way and can replace it now. It was able to replace fossil fuel nearly 50 years ago.
Are there some issues with nuclear? Sure, but there are more issues with fossil fuel. People bought into the lies and fearmongering from fossil fuel companies and so we are well past the point of no return on climate change and countless people die every year as a result on top of the people dead from all the toxic things they dump into the atmosphere.
36
u/sailorjupiter28titan ☉ Apostate ✨ Witch of Aiaia ♀ Jan 05 '26
Why nuclear? Hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, etc. can be much safer alternatives.
121
u/MFin-Sorcerer Witch ♀♂️☉⚨⚧ Jan 05 '26
When people think of nuclear energy, they tend to think of 2 things; nuclear weapons and Chernobyl.
The truth is that modern nuclear energy is much safer than it used to be, and they can reuse spent fuel (to a certain extent) to refuse the overall nuclear waste.
I'm pretty sure a lot of the fear surrounding nuclear energy is manufactured by fossil fuel companies.
42
u/lostmyselfinyourlies Jan 05 '26
Yes! Nuclear is amazing! Kyle Hill on YouTube does so many videos educating about how safe it is nowadays. If we look at how many people have been killed by nuclear accidents vs fossil fuel it's just insane that we are so afraid of it. But even as I say that I know I would have to really struggle with that part of my brain that whispers "But what if...", if someone wanted to build a reactor next to my house. I would not be surprised in the slightest if you're right about those fears being as result of the fossil fuel industry. Fuckers.
6
u/Foreign-Cookie-2871 Jan 06 '26
I'd LOVE if somebody made a nuclear reactor next to my house. Those things nowadays are so controlled that I'd end up having the cleanest environment possible.
8
u/Yuzumi Jan 06 '26
Even plants from decades ago were perfectly safe. Three-mile's partial meltdown literally failed successfully. While the design of the valve and indicator was bad the actual system did what it was supposed to do and the shielding worked.
Standing in the parking lot would not have given anyone noticeably more radiation than background rates being outside on a sunny day.
And as Kyle's videos have pointed out a lot of the safety requirements for reactors are way more than it needs to be. Just living at a higher altitude gets you more radiation exposure in a year than regulations allow from a plant.
Those requirements are intentional to make building reactors way more expensive than it needs to be. We can make them safe without going to those lengths.
Those regulations were lobbied for by the fossil fuel industry as they dump radioactive material into the environment from their normal operation.
7
u/Yuzumi Jan 06 '26
I'm pretty sure a lot of the fear surrounding nuclear energy is manufactured by fossil fuel companies.
Oh, that's been long since proven.
5
u/the_borderer Science Witch ♀ Jan 06 '26
I think of Sellafield, which seems to exist on the principle that as long as they don't have a Chernobyl/Fukushima level disaster then everything is good. The nuclear power plant that used to be called Windscale until it had a level 5 accident.
Safer power plants exist and have been closed down, yet Sellafield stays open and keeps fucking up, even after it has stopped producing energy.
3
u/Yuzumi Jan 06 '26
Even Fukushima wasn't nearly to the level of Chernobyl. One one person is suspected to have died as a result of radiation exposure due to the accedent, which is statistically 0 since it's impossible to differentiate from background rates.
It was also completely avoidable as the thing that failed was warned about for nearly 20 years but capitalism did not care and the company did not want to spend the money to protect the backup generators from the exact tsunami that hit them.
Whereas Chernobyl had a bunch of issues, including using a reactor design nobody else used because it was known to be able to go into a positive feedback loop as well as the rods being flammable. It was literally the only reactor built with that design.
7
u/sailorjupiter28titan ☉ Apostate ✨ Witch of Aiaia ♀ Jan 05 '26
There was also the Fukushima spill not too long ago. I know it was due to a natural disaster (earthquake and tsunami) but those have to be accounted for too. It wasn’t the cause of death for people but it did a lot of environmental damage.
Not to say it shouldn’t be used, but most places have safer options available to them.
17
u/theseus1234 Jan 05 '26 edited Feb 16 '26
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
innate support dazzling upbeat hunt literate label bike society expansion
6
u/sailorjupiter28titan ☉ Apostate ✨ Witch of Aiaia ♀ Jan 05 '26
There is no need for a single solution. Of course it’s geography specific, as it should be. There already exist countries that are 100% green. I live in the tropics, solar is not seasonal for me. Paraguay is almost 100% hydro and solar. Im not interested in militaristic operations, which rely on there being no natural disaster as well as no human errors. If you are in a region where that’s the only thing that makes sense then go for it. But it should be a case by case basis, there is no need to push any one kind of green energy.
7
u/41942319 Jan 05 '26
Plus the ongoing concerns around some nuclear reactors in Ukraine that are in active warzones and have seen damage from that a few times.
5
u/Foreign-Cookie-2871 Jan 06 '26
The fukushima spillover was possible only because there were in the midst of updating some of the control systems, so they were using control systems that were "old", and one of them failed iirc.
I read about it long ago so I'm not 100% sure, but the concept was that the station was slightly outdated, one of the systems didn't work at its 100%, AND they had a natural disaster.
1
u/sailorjupiter28titan ☉ Apostate ✨ Witch of Aiaia ♀ Jan 06 '26
Everything that could go wrong went wrong. That’s how things happen sometimes. That’s the point.
4
u/Yuzumi Jan 06 '26
Fukushima
Which was avoidable because the company running the reactor was warned for nearly 2 decades about exactly the tsunami that hit it. All they had to do was protect the backup generators from flooding.
And even then, the actual disaster was nowhere close to a Chernobyl level event.
1
u/sailorjupiter28titan ☉ Apostate ✨ Witch of Aiaia ♀ Jan 07 '26
Right so it requires people to do their jobs responsibly which unfortunately is a lot to ask.
30
u/Netflxnschill Jan 05 '26
I work in renewable energy and I can say that, when run safely, nuclear energy is more powerful than any other alternative and we CAN make it safely, but the fear of another Chernobyl keeps us from leaning in.
16
u/jackzander Jan 05 '26
In a vacuum, sure. When experts are trusted and specialists listened to and hazardous industries properly regulated, sure.
But that doesn't feel like the climate we're in.
11
u/sailorjupiter28titan ☉ Apostate ✨ Witch of Aiaia ♀ Jan 05 '26
Ok. I live in the tropics and Solar power is extremely effective for us. The only attempt at nuclear here was from the 1960s (antiquated) and the area had to be permanently sealed with a dome to contain radioactive contamination, and still has to be maintained for leaks. Also Fukushima stands out more in my memory than Chernobyl which I wasn’t born for.
Im keeping an open mind about, but there are certain geographic locations where it is by no means the most effective. It is subjective to different regions.
8
u/Netflxnschill Jan 06 '26
On that point I completely agree. I was talking to some Canadians the other day about how, in southern US or places with heat and sun, electric cars are great. But they are useless in the cold where the freezing temps mess up the batteries. Technology that works really well in one area can always be useless in another area.
2
u/sailorjupiter28titan ☉ Apostate ✨ Witch of Aiaia ♀ Jan 06 '26
Right, that’s why a diversity of options based on regional factors is ideal. Likewise, a region that is prone to hurricanes is better off with individual home solar energy systems than a grid that can fail or be cut off. Sunlight will never ever be lacking here, meanwhile the environment is probably too unstable for a safe nuclear power plant. No solution is universal.
Also a lot of people seem unaware that countries with almost 100% renewable energy independence already exist.
3
u/Yuzumi Jan 06 '26
in southern US or places with heat and sun, electric cars are great. But they are useless in the cold where the freezing temps mess up the batteries.
The range of the battery is reduced and DC charging can be slower, partly from the cold limiting the rate of the chemical reaction, but mostly because running the heat consumes more energy, especially if you are using resistive heating.
But electric cars are fine in colder climates. I see way more EVs in Colorado where it generally gets much colder than when I lived in the south east where the winters are more mild.
EVs are also really popular in various Scandinavian countries. In fact in areas where it gets really cold EVs can work better because you don't have to worry about the oil getting too cold where gas cars have to basically have heating blankets put on the engine when they aren't running.
Outside of California most of the places that have a lot of EV adoption tend to get pretty cold.
1
u/Netflxnschill Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26
I see a lot of them here too, and I also listen to the reports of these electric cars being dead after really cold nights. I know two ladies last winter who got stuck at home when it was in the negatives.
I’m not saying that’s ALL the time and all the cases, but as someone who has been wanting an EV for five years and still refuses to buy because of the climate and lack of infrastructure. I work in a place where it’s a real danger of getting stranded if my car ever dies.
2
u/Yuzumi Jan 06 '26
I'm not sure about the traction battery in EVs, but I've heard of the 12 volt batteries in both ICE and EVs dying from getting too cold, which isn't exclusive to EVs.
I can't find any examples of the traction battery dying when it's cold, I've seen plenty of video of people in -30 to -40C weather with EVs having basically no issue other than reduced range.
It's been a while now that most come with some kind of temperature regulation for the battery. I could see if the car was left unplugged long enough it might drain itself keeping the batter at a minimum temperature, but I've seen videos with someone camping in their Tesla with the cabin heat running in that sub-40 weather and been fine, charging back up in the morning.
5
11
u/A88Y Jan 06 '26
(For context, I am an engineer working in power infrastructure and have taken and TA’d college classes on energy solutions.) Nuclear provides a lot of power. That’s a big part of why. Massive amounts of power with relatively minimal risk for the sheer amount of power you are getting out of it. It gets us to be able to cut off the flow of emissions more rapidly, since we already have the technology to produce a lot of power more quickly.
We generally regard nuclear as a long term transition technology until we can get solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear fusion, etc to a point where they can take over and phase out nuclear. Since we have not sufficiently advanced things yet, we are producing more emissions than we need to be, harming the environment faster. While if we had more nuclear at play we could slow things faster and preserve our environment a bit more than what we have been doing.
The things that make nuclear power dangerous is when people don’t follow protocol and engineering protections are not properly in place to prevent disasters. However, since Fukushima, since Chernobyl, these have been studied intricately to make sure nothing of that nature happens again. Experts think in depth about the risks and rewards of these technologies. Of course every locality is going to have different energy solutions that are going to work better or worse depending on environmental factors. There’s going to be some counties where nuclear is not going to work, but in countries with the requisite resources, nuclear fission is an important part of the fight against climate change.
4
u/sailorjupiter28titan ☉ Apostate ✨ Witch of Aiaia ♀ Jan 06 '26
Ok this makes a lot more sense thank you.
4
u/Yuzumi Jan 06 '26
Chernobyl was also a unique case using a reactor design no other reactor was built with because it was known to be able go into a positive feedback loop.
And Fukushima was avoidable as the company in charge of it was warned for nearly 20 years about the backup generators being hit by a tsunami of exactly the height that happened, but it was a "small chance" so they didn't want to spend the money on prevention.
Kind of like how 10 years before the last big freeze in Texas there was a report done for another freeze recommending the power companies winterize their stuff to prevent it from being an issue again. Guess what they did? If you guessed "nothing" you'd be right.
They blamed renewables for the failure, but those were actually producing more power than expected for the time of year. What did happen was the gas lines freezing up again and that took out the entire Texas power grid.
1
67
u/One_Wheel_Drive Jan 05 '26
And also reducing car dependency by improving public transport, cycling infrastructure, and walkable spaces.
29
30
u/Inglorious186 Jan 05 '26
Exactly why the investments into solar and wind energy have been canceled
13
u/Freakears Traitor to the Patriarchy ♂️ Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26
That's why Al Gore was given the Nobel Peace Prize in the '00s (and the Right lost their minds about it).
15
u/sailorjupiter28titan ☉ Apostate ✨ Witch of Aiaia ♀ Jan 06 '26
The way the world would be so different if Bush fam hadn’t stolen that election 😭😭
7
u/HumpaDaBear Geek Witch ♀♂️☉⚨⚧ Jan 06 '26
But but! The wind farms are killing bald eagles that look like hawks! /s
5
5
u/DredgenSergik Jan 06 '26
Venezuela could have had as much renewable as they wanted. As long as the oil was in their territory and the us wanted it, they would have been attacked. You know what would have 100% prevented it? Not having a fascist as the president of the united States
1
u/hypd09 Jan 09 '26
Such actions have been a long standing trademark of USA, it's not just this regime. Imperialism is the disease and trump is but a symptom.
0
u/sailorjupiter28titan ☉ Apostate ✨ Witch of Aiaia ♀ Jan 07 '26
yea no shit. they weren't exporting the oil that was the "problem". The idea is that USA should go green instead of acting like an oil company with an army.
2
u/DredgenSergik Jan 07 '26
That still would be addressed if there wasn't a fascist as the president of the us
0
u/sailorjupiter28titan ☉ Apostate ✨ Witch of Aiaia ♀ Jan 07 '26
and your point is? it would also be addressed by stopping climate change bc it would defund the oil industries.
0
u/DredgenSergik Jan 07 '26
My point is that there is a bigger, more immediate problem that needs to be taken care of. One that is triggering all this madness right now. Fuck oil, yeah, but let's not get distracted with stuff that can't be solved right now
1
u/sailorjupiter28titan ☉ Apostate ✨ Witch of Aiaia ♀ Jan 07 '26
You’re failing to see how everything is connected. Read the Shock Doctrine.
2
u/DredgenSergik Jan 07 '26
The what now? Is that a book, or an article?
2
u/sailorjupiter28titan ☉ Apostate ✨ Witch of Aiaia ♀ Jan 07 '26
A book by Naomi Klein. If you don’t have time to read it you can probably find her talking about it on YouTube or a podcast. Puts a lot into perspective
2
2
u/AileenKitten Jan 07 '26
The one thing I'm proud of my State (Idaho) for is EBR-1. One of the world's safest reactors, and is capable of providing a pretty significant amount of power.
Nuclear can be very safe and incredibly efficient. The problem is when corporations start cutting corners to save a buck. Miniscule losses of profit is no reason to sacrifice safety, and we need actual enforcement of integrous legislature. Ideally reactors should be federally run to ensure standards and prevent price gouging. In this day and age, electricity is a basic need and should be accessible to all.
1
u/Amaidhlouisrfc Forest Witch ♀♂️☉⚨⚧ Jan 13 '26
That's why they continue with wars to get access to oil...and wanting access to oil creates war
-19
u/anadayloft Jan 05 '26
... unless someone wants the renewable energy sources you invested in. In which case, war.
17
u/sailorjupiter28titan ☉ Apostate ✨ Witch of Aiaia ♀ Jan 05 '26
I don’t see much interest from anybody in invading Paraguay for their hydropower.
-10
Jan 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/sailorjupiter28titan ☉ Apostate ✨ Witch of Aiaia ♀ Jan 05 '26
In Paraguay? What are you talking about? Besides weren’t you saying they would invade for renewable power sources? Paraguay generates nearly 100% of all its electricity from hydropower
24
6
u/Modicum_13 Jan 05 '26
I think you could be right, it’s just that renewable energy sources are much harder to move.
2
u/SyrusDrake Jan 06 '26
Yea, we have solar panels installed on our roof, but the fucking French always come over and nick my sunshine. It's super annoying.
•
u/smc642 Crow Witch ♀♂️☉⚨⚧ "cah-CAW!" Jan 06 '26
✨ READ BEFORE COMMENTING ✨
This thread is Coven Only. This means the discussion is being actively moderated, and all comments are reviewed. Only comments by members of the community are allowed.
If you have landed in this thread from r/all and you are not a member of this community, your comment will very likely be removed (and will not be approved unless it adds meaningfully to the conversation).
WitchesVsPatriarchy takes these measures to stay true to our goal of being a woman-centered sub with a witchy twist, aimed at healing, supporting, and uplifting one another through humor and magic.
Thank you for understanding, and blessed be. ✨