this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2026
638 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
78923 readers
3026 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not sure about that.
Nuclear energy is safer than ever.
We even have small nuclear reactors that can use spent fuel from the larger ones, thus solving in part the disposal of it.
Furthermore, significant advances have been achieved on fision power.
Clinging to oil is like refusing to replace your horse with a car.
Do we? Last I heard there aren't any in service.
We'll need a hell of a lot more advances before fusion is even close to powering a grid.
Are you guys taking about fusion? Aren't all nuclear powerplants using fission reactions?
Corrected, thanks!
When you have plug-in hybrid tanks or nuclear powered strategic bombers oil will see a diminish in it's strategic relevance as a resource.
Fusion is nowhere near being in industrial use or being profitable. In the future, maybe, pending more breakthroughs.
Whether nuclear is a good idea to cling to going forward or not, it takes time to deploy. Those small reactors don't just come off a shelf, ready to be turned on. Oil, however, can generate power TODAY, anywhere you can ship it.
The question isn't whether it's a good idea to keep burning oil -- it definitely isn't -- the question is whether oil is still a hugely important energy commodity and the answer is a resounding yes. Notably, the article mentions that China's oil use hasn't even peaked yet. China does not use a small amount of oil.
This is a HUGE reason to push for progress. Oil is critical to so much of modern life and we have no substitutes for all too much of it. We need more progress where we do have options (eg. EVs) so we can start growing out of our dependency before it becomes a crisis
I think we should also focus on using less energy overall – e.g. replace short to medium persinal car trips with walking, bicycles and public transport, medium to long travel with trains, eliminating unnecessary travel that can't be accommodated by those modes of transport. Environmental solutions like replacing fossil fuel powered cars with emissions free, but equally dangerous and still inefficient EVs for personal use will keep us burning oil even longer by tying up investments in highways and hostile, car based infrastructure.
Things like rethinking infrastructure, labor, economy and housing would have been more achievable and, for most, felt more like progressing towards a better future than straighup sci-fi level efforts to continue the status quo without as much oil. But it's the latter we get, they're putting carbon capture machines on Norwegian oil rigs as we speak.
For sure we should reduce overall travel.