r/TikTokCringe • u/Girl-Understood • Aug 22 '26

Discussion This mother has gone viral vlogging her experience during the ongoing Gary, Indiana Blackout, people angered by the GoFundMe support she's attracted decided to report it and doxxed her.

16.8k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

503

u/Xlxlredditor Aug 22 '26 edited Aug 22 '26

Yeah they have solar power. Which Gary, ID IN should also have, funded by taxes, but hey who cares about people huh?

Edit: Indiana is IN actually

192

u/Yung_zu Aug 22 '26

A blackout of this scale is definitely one way to ruin the reputation of centralized power

137

u/i_lost_it_all_1 Aug 23 '26

Don't worry Trump just pulled projects started under Biden that would have improved power distribution systems and improve/upgrade infrastructure. It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off for them

8

u/HinterWolf Aug 27 '26

It doesn't matter. We can hem and haw all we want but even if they dont get elected again 4 years of damage is done that will take 4x that to fix and by then everyone votes back in a republican because the democrat couldnt fix 4 years of damage in 4 years

-1

u/nicknamesas Aug 28 '26

0

u/Fool_In_Flow Aug 28 '26

The original comment that started this thread might not have been specifically about him, but it was about how the government won’t invest in solar yet they still rely on it for things that benefit them and not us.

57

u/Xlxlredditor Aug 22 '26

Worst part is that centralized power is a good idea but they want it as cheap as possible and so we get this

5

u/Sweaty_Camel_118 Aug 23 '26

Centralized power is a risky idea in the days of ai. Having one system that can be hacked to distrubt an entire nation is too big a risk. The more decentralized our energy system is, the safer is is from external threats like a foreign nation were at war with hacking our systems.

I won't deny there are benefits to having a centralized electric grid, but i think those benefits are far outweighed by the lack or security that would come with it.

2

u/krone6 Aug 23 '26

Hey now, you're using logic. We don't do that around here.

1

u/jamesph777 Aug 23 '26

If we had a decentralized energy system, a portion of the population wouldn’t have access to electricity anymore

2

u/Sweaty_Camel_118 Aug 23 '26

Care to explain how that works?

0

u/Xlxlredditor Aug 23 '26

To have a decentralized electric system function you need it to not melt under demand. See Texas in the winter. "AI" can't "Hack" damn copper power cables. If a station goes offline, another picks the slack up

2

u/bobbyd1335 Aug 23 '26

But other aspects of power systems can absolutely be hacked, probably not easily, but they can. Agreed though, power generally has to be centralized and you can have scattered microgrids that are capable of sustaining themselves, or individual buildings/residences that are self sufficient.

1

u/Sweaty_Camel_118 Aug 23 '26

It's crazy how a simple diy solar system, battery bank, and backup generator can sustain a home completley decentralized from the grid and maintain 100% uptime but we can't figure it out on a larger scale. Mostlikley due to certain power users (corporations) using too much at 1 time. Easy solution, make them produce their own power rather than put a strain on our electrical grid.

Ai can absolutely hack copper wires that have computer controlled switches in line.

9

u/chokeyourdad Aug 23 '26

How about the reputation of the state and local governments.

4

u/Individual_Fall429 Aug 23 '26

Yes that’s really what the conversation is, globally. 🙄

Why on earth would anyone outside America care about your little state governments? The federal government is responsible for the entire country, or you don’t have a country, you have 50 small countries wearing a trench coat, trying to act like a grown up.

2

u/Individual_Fall429 Aug 23 '26

Well Trump does want to be a dictator. A hallmark of authoritarian dictatorships are rolling blackouts. 🤷‍♀️

1

u/dida2010 Aug 23 '26

data center is hungry

1

u/Ent_Soviet Aug 28 '26

Privatized power you mean.

250

u/demgoldencoins Aug 22 '26

Exactly. We have these problems because certain people chose not to fix them. We don’t have to have starving children (1 in 5 faces hunger insecurity in USA) yet we do. It’s time to stop being divided over the things they want us to be and be a power people again.

191

u/blood_bones_hearts Aug 22 '26

I get so ragey when I hear people say the world is overpopulated so we can't support everyone. Yes we can. The hoarding billionaires and capitalist overlords hog all the resources for themselves so we're left to fight over crumbs because they'd rather us do that then focus our attention on the actual problem.

121

u/Ancientabs Aug 23 '26

Not just billionaires, CHURCHES hoard money.

The Mormon church sits on a wealth of $500 billion dollars.

They could have permanently ended world hunger TWICE and still met their operating budget for years to come.

Someone needs to relieve the Mormon Church of its rainy day fund.

43

u/endbit Aug 23 '26

They are saving up to build the Nauvoo intergenerational ship.

3

u/ScatteredWavesGlory Aug 23 '26

They're saving that to create a theocracy

1

u/Ancientabs Aug 23 '26

Is this a simpsons reference?

4

u/endbit Aug 23 '26

Expanse, some top tier scifi.

2

u/Broad-Detective1925 Aug 23 '26

I just started watching a few weeks ago. I'm halfway through season 2 now. Loving it!

37

u/Individual_Fall429 Aug 23 '26

You’re so right. And what do churches and billionaires have in common? They don’t pay no taxes! 🤦‍♀️

5

u/Grateful_Dad17 Aug 23 '26

There’s like, at least ONE other thing…

2

u/Helltothenotothenono Aug 23 '26

Time to change that for both. Oh and for that trillionaire doofus douchebag. Let’s end good trillionaire stays and make sure there never is another again until everyone is fed and pays nothing to get health care. Do that and you billionaires can hoard the rest of the money.

Well. Maybe not all of it. But you’d have a lot more supporters. And the bullshit “I signed an agreement to donate most of my wealth” doesn’t count you fucks haven’t done it. You’re still billionaires. The only one I’ve heard of actually doing it is Jeff Bezos ex wife and she’s still a billionaire.

3

u/Capable-Culture917 Aug 24 '26

She’s not a billionaire anymore. She’s already given away a substantial amount of her wealth. She’s was the prize not his plastic surgery Barbie.

2

u/Helltothenotothenono Aug 24 '26

Man you are correct about that and honestly she was eye candy. Imagine dumping her for that haggard woman and her plastic surgery addiction. It is gross. But something about her strokes his ego in some way.

2

u/Capable-Culture917 Aug 24 '26

She looks like a fish. I get getting a little nip and tuck here or there but she barely looks human. He bought a human blow up doll. I mean her brother tried to extort him for money about their affair.

1

u/Helltothenotothenono Aug 24 '26

Rich people are just ishy. And that’s a good analogy she dies look like a fish. Her boob job is the worst.

2

u/enhancedgibbon Aug 23 '26

But you know those rocks for the hats aren't cheap.

1

u/Ancientabs Aug 24 '26

You can buy anything in this world for money

2

u/IndividualChart4193 Aug 24 '26

Oh, that’s peanuts next to what the Catholic Church has. They own soooo much property around the world but no one knows for sure how much cuz they don’t have to report it and it’s all intentionally hidden.

1

u/Ancientabs Aug 24 '26

The catholic church doesn't have the blind obedience or centralized power the Mormon church has.

1

u/Ovaltine1 Aug 23 '26

They are billionaires.

1

u/Upstairs-Medium-8149 Aug 23 '26

I used to be Mormon and can attest to this statistic. The church requires every member, even children, to pay 10% of all income. We are told it is for the poor but thru internet access we now know this is far from honest. Sure they give a few millions but they have $400 Billion!!! See stats on widowsmitereport. org.

I am so very sorry for your pain dear sister. I’ll try to give some money thru go fund me but that doesn’t help with no grocery stores or the awful violence in your town. I’m crying for you.

4

u/ScatteredWavesGlory Aug 23 '26

Thanos Was Wrong

This video even though it's 7years old now I remember watching like it was yesterday and it still very much applies to what you're talking about.

Overpopulation is a myth, capitalism is a scourge.

Time for reformation.

2

u/Somanylyingliars Aug 23 '26 edited 12d ago

Account nuked because reddit now forcing login. Fuck off Reddit! See you over at Lemmy.

2

u/clonedhuman Aug 23 '26

There is enough in this country for everyone to have enough to eat, a place to live, and access to healthcare. There is more than enough for all of us to have those things.

But, there isn't enough for us and for the billionaires.

2

u/iamwhiskerbiscuit Aug 23 '26

And it's dumb that we have a monetary system where money is created through the issuance of debt... And 85% of it is loaned to people with over $10M net worth so they can consolidate more wealth and power... So they can buy up all the available homes, electrical plants, water plants, stores etc, and sell it along to the highest bidder. When people scalp tickets or toilet paper, they can be labeled criminals. But when people scalp homes, electrical grids, municipal water supplies, farms and such... We call them shrewd business men providing valuable services. In reality, they are not providing goods and services. They are merely holding them hostage.

-2

u/uptheantinatalism Aug 23 '26

It’s nice to dream.

Better to take personal responsibility and do what you can by not having children if you can’t support them.

1

u/Individual_Fall429 Aug 23 '26

So only the super rich and the totally irresponsible are having children. You see the problem?

1

u/demgoldencoins Aug 23 '26

Better to have empathy for others as you don’t know how they had children or why. As a social worker who has worked with extremely low income families in St Louis, the reason someone has children can be incredibly varied, it can be complicated and it honestly isn’t anyone’s business.

What should be our business is the fact that the poor children in St. Louis do not even access to accredited public school. Is that their parent’s fault, considering we all know there is a strong link between education and poverty? No, it’s not. Those are choices made by rich people and then to say, oh well because these wealthy people made decisions that are really bad for the poor people, because of THAT they are not allowed to have children.

The system was designed to keep the poor poor and so many (you included) are parroting the lies and misinformation that the uber, uber rich peddle us.

The irony here is that it usually takes education to fully understand how fucked this all is and education is turning into the enemy by the right…. Does that seem like an accident or coincidence?

Stop falling into the trap. Stop being a sheep. Start thinking for yourself and realize the poor people are NOT and have never been the problem.

1

u/uptheantinatalism Aug 23 '26

Tl;dr the only reason anyone has a child is a selfish one. Obvs unless it was non-consensual and they have no access to abortion.

-1

u/Chuckfinley_88 Aug 23 '26

I get so ragey when I hear people say the world is overpopulated so we can't support everyone.

Hi, I have never seen anyone say the second part of your sentence.

The world is overpopulated. That puts a strain on limited, non-renewable resources. It also is rocketing us towards a future where life is unsustainable thanks to the effects of climate change. And if you've ever been in a mega city, it is so god damned crowded and gross feeling.

But none of that means we cant house or feed the people that are here. And again, I've literally never seen anyone make that statement/argument before. I think you are conflating things or frankly, making it up.

2

u/Fool_In_Flow Aug 23 '26

In one of my public health classes, our professor had us do a Quizzo where he asked us this: There is not enough food to feed all the people in the world. True or False.
About 80% of the class, including myself, picked True.
A significant amount of people are under the impression that there is not enough food in the world.

1

u/Capable-Culture917 Aug 24 '26

The thing is around the world we have enough. There are depopulated places all over the world because work and technology is in cities. I worked in a village in France that used to be a town. 3,000 people. People own houses there but work in the city during the week. Our consumers killing us. Look at the Indian Ocean and the shipping lanes, trash, plastics, waste. Agriculture is becoming more difficult but we also have treatment resistant diseases that cull populations as it always has in human history.

41

u/matlspa Aug 22 '26

It's been time, for decades. It's going in the other direction, and fast, sadly

1

u/perpetualmotionmachi Aug 23 '26

Don't worry, I'm sure that what Reagan said, that it will trickle down, that's going to happen soon. Just after a few more big business subsidies. Yup, any day now.

1

u/matlspa Aug 23 '26

It is trickling down. It's just a veeeery slow trickle.

2

u/unlordtempest Aug 22 '26

Gary has been ignored my entire life. FYI, I'll be 49 in 9 days.

1

u/Individual_Fall429 Aug 23 '26

The problem is the divide is between people who care about feeding starving children and people who… just don’t. 😢

1

u/troublebruther Aug 23 '26

Exactly! Wow someone else on Reddit gets it! Division is the most powerful tool of those who actually rule our lives. This whole Left vs Right thing has worked all too well the last 12yrs. We need to work together to make changes to our government. To change the way our representatives can not represent us at every turn, to do away lobbying, add term limits, get rid of insider trading and gut the patriot act. The list seems never ending, our voices strained, we stand divided but not as one, but we can do this. We must do this

0

u/DioSantana11 Aug 22 '26

I have no obligation to do more than my MASSIVE income taxes

3

u/20milliondollarapi Aug 22 '26

I mean you have obligation to make sure the people in power make proper use of those taxes.

1

u/demgoldencoins Aug 23 '26

It would seem like we would all care where our money went. I personally don’t want to fund gold plated statues and a domestic terrorism group.

1

u/DioSantana11 Aug 23 '26

Lol but you’re ok with open borders 🤡

2

u/demgoldencoins Aug 22 '26

Good for you?

0

u/CitizenofTruth Aug 22 '26

We also wouldn’t have that many starving children if people who couldn’t afford them didn’t bring them into this world.

5

u/demgoldencoins Aug 22 '26

Well how can people not when your people made abortion illegal?

2

u/CitizenofTruth Aug 22 '26

My people made abortion illegal? I don’t have people and I’m pro choice so not sure who you’re talking about.

4

u/Fool_In_Flow Aug 22 '26

Yes because no one ever loses their job, experiences the death of a spouse, has gone through a natural or man made disaster, has been screwed by a predatory loan, experienced a serious medical issue that limits work and creates tons of debt, or lives within a society that has insane inflation where food costs 4 times as much as it used to, yet wages are the same.

0

u/CitizenofTruth Aug 22 '26 edited Aug 22 '26

Ok you know good and well that those examples are an extremely small number of people who have children they can’t afford to feed. There are plenty of places to get food for free as well as cheaper grocery stores.

Should minimum wage be higher…absolutely yes in a lot of states. However, if two adults are struggling to pay rent and feed themselves, you think it’s ok for them to bring a child into the world and then ask the government to feed that child? Everyone’s answer to that question should be no.

1

u/demgoldencoins Aug 23 '26

It is so amazing to me that the answer here isn’t 1. Increase min wage before being judgmental as hell 2. Decrease the price of food 3. Decrease rent 4. Quality education should be a right, not a privilege

How is it okay that the rich say oh let’s make food more expensive and then you say, those poor people need to work harder. Try on a little empathy today. It might help.

1

u/Fool_In_Flow Aug 23 '26 edited Aug 23 '26

There is plenty of food for everyone-it is a fact that we do have more than enough food for everyone on this planet- yet some people are going hungry.

This is because corporations create food scarcity and gouge prices. In this thread we were discussing the idea that we don’t think those in charge should let that happen. The industry should be better regulated. There is no need to let people go hungry when the food is there. Clearly something is wrong with the economy when families cannot buy the things they need to not die. We think this should be fixed. Maybe limit how much profit can be made or freeze prices right now, anything.

Your idea is that no, cooperations should continue to gouge us. The real solution is anybody who is not upper middle class with a large savings cushion just should not have kids.

You also wrote that despite this inflated economy affecting the entire nation, and about 40% of adults holding medical debt, and about 2.5 million Americans impacted by natural disasters yearly, and about 1 million widowed moms and 250,000 widowed dads currently living in the US, and 21.2 million layoffs among workers in the last year, that my examples don’t count because they rarely happen. And I believe your example of adults who can barely feed themselves making the active decision to have children is just as rare. There are so many other ways families end up without enough food.But you’re mad at the families and not the CEO that makes billions of dollars a year?

It doesn’t seem like you really understand what life is like for the majority of people. I wish you understood how easily regular people lose their footing.

0

u/smokeytheeyelash Aug 23 '26

Poverty was nearly cut in half during the 2020 -21 when the child credits and extra unemployment was given

1

u/demgoldencoins Aug 23 '26

And it doubled again as soon as it was stopped.

Just proving the point that this is a choice.

77

u/No_Mud_5999 Aug 22 '26

But hey, the DOW is over 50,000! The economy is so hot right now! Yay.

49

u/newleafkratom Aug 22 '26

Let them eat shares. /s

1

u/Capable-Culture917 Aug 24 '26

Let’s eat the people talking about and owning the shares. Eat those greedy, bastards.

0

u/evlhornet Aug 23 '26 edited Aug 24 '26

We are making so much money right now - Trump

2

u/Capable-Culture917 Aug 24 '26

Who is we?

1

u/evlhornet Aug 24 '26

That’s is the exact correct question

15

u/Zxvasdfthrowaway Aug 22 '26

Agreed! Btw you meant to say IN

3

u/Xlxlredditor Aug 22 '26

Could you tell I'm not American

4

u/Zxvasdfthrowaway Aug 22 '26

No, because the number of Americans who do not know all the state abbreviations is not small at all

2

u/Dirk_Kailis Aug 22 '26

You seem bright

1

u/Xlxlredditor Aug 22 '26

I know my idea isn't how it works and it's not a power generation fault but an infrastructure problem but let a man dream will you

1

u/Binji_the_dog Aug 22 '26

Idk how much you know about Indiana, but if you try to warn the people around here about an impending problem they get PISSED.  Especially if your proposal to help them involves solar power.

They want help now that they don’t have power, but if anybody had tried to do anything to prevent this ahead of time they never would have gotten enough support to change anything.

3

u/Aiglos_and_Narsil Aug 22 '26

I drove through parts or rural Indiana to see the eclipse a few years ago and I saw a lot of very angry 'no solar' signs in people's yards.

3

u/Binji_the_dog Aug 22 '26

Yeah, they’re trying to buy up a bunch of farmland and convert it to solar arrays.

A lot of people oppose it for various reasons.

One issue people have that I can kind of understand is that it’s going to be an eye sore.

They’re going to put solar arrays in the field behind my mom’s house and she’s not very happy about it. Although historically that land has been farmed by our family for over 100 years until very recently, so I can understand that she doesn’t want it to be converted away from farmland.

I understand not wanting a solar array in your back yard, but also, they have to put the things somewhere. And based on the way the farmland is laid out, the solar arrays are going to have to end up in someone’s back yard.

But most people just oppose it because they’re stupid.

1

u/boomgoon Aug 22 '26

Gary is in Idaho and has solar, but he lives off grid. Is a complete dick and no one likes him. No one will sell him gas, food and the electric company gets shot at if they go on his property.

🐿

1

u/LowManufacturer1002 Aug 23 '26

actually indiana basically outlaws small scale solar on a residential basis because power companies lobby hard :) and our politicians are some of the worst and yet still get votes in cause our constituents are essentially brainwashed at this point

1

u/Xlxlredditor Aug 23 '26

I love corrupt politicians

1

u/stratdog25 Aug 23 '26

Yep. And Gary is not Louisiana, Paris France, New York or Rome.

1

u/atuan Aug 23 '26

Where does the power from all those wind farms around there go?

0

u/PrincipleFlaky Aug 23 '26

Here’s the problem with solar power. It only works when the sun is shining.

Other than that, they have serious intermittent issues, and they typically fall back on fossil fuels and natural gas. Aka mostly fracking.

The dirty little secret about green energy is that back when Elon Musk was still normal and left-leaning, he promised to build super Tesla warehouses that were meant to be ginormous battery Tesla backups, that could back up things like renewable energy.

He went on Vice News and made all these promises about it. Oh, all we need is 100 of these globally, and we could solve the world’s climate crisis!

Which, sure, maybe they could have. 🤔 Or maybe it was just all bullshit PR. 😒 But for whatever reason, Elon decided not to pursue it.

But that’s what renewable energy needs: huge battery power backups, or you have to have some other form of energy flowing; otherwise, it flows intermittently. That’s what they mean about the intermittency problem. When the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining, you have to pull power from somewhere else because we don’t have these huge, massive battery backups.

Fast-forward 10 years and Elon is on a rocket to Mars (at least mentally), and now he’s a checked-out chainsaw-wielding maniac.

Sadly, now they’re realizing that if we want to battle climate change, the only true and I’m not even kidding you, you can look this up all you want, the only true clean energy they’re saying now is nuclear energy. Like omg, THE FUCK??? 🤬

Like, how’s that gonna work when there’s no water to cool down your reactors and also when it gets so oppressively hot that you literally can’t cool down your cooling towers? It’s just dangerous, or if the Earth gets hit with a massive solar flare and knocks out the power grid, just for example.

The problem is always about having backup energy. And not having to rely on fossil fuels. But as it is now? We are screwed.

Like I was under the misconception, I thought that Vegas was completely run on that huge solar array that they have out in the desert. I was like why don’t they do this in Phoenix? Phoenix is run on nuclear power. Which by the way is the only nuclear power plant even though yes it leaks and it contaminates the area and they’ve been fined for it, but it’s the only one in the world that makes sense because it’s the only one built in the desert, and they actually use septic water to cool down the reactor. And that’s the only one that makes sense to me because why would you put it right on the Atlantic Ocean, or right on a fragile river, or a great lake?! Like all the other ones that are on bodies of water? That seems insane to me!!

But nonetheless, I was like why don’t they do that in Phoenix? And then my friend said oh don’t you know? Vegas isn’t run by that solar array. 55% is gas, 5% is coal. Some of it is geothermal, some of it from the Hoover Dam. Only about 25% is from solar electricity.

So yeah, that’s the problem with that, and it’s the same thing with wind. They only generate when the wind is blowing. And here’s another dirty secret: did you know lots of those wind farms and solar farms are actually owned by fossil fuel energy companies?

I mean, our only hope as a species is literally for the billionaires to decide that it’s in their best interest to save the planet, but there is no planet B, and they have to do something about climate change!!

Which sucks because they’re so out of touch. They really believe that they will be untouchable on Mars when it all goes to hell here.

There is no planet B!! Smh! 😭

0

u/Xlxlredditor Aug 23 '26 edited Aug 23 '26

I have to disagree. You can have batteries that can provide emergency power. Now solar is quite inefficient. Let's also talk about Nuclear. It's perhaps the best way to generate electricity without CO2 emissions. After it's true that you need to store the waste which is bad and quite complicated. Also IIRC the water isn't wasted but turned into steam.

I do agree that wind and solar aren't that great as general means of production. I think they are useful for these situations where the grid fails because as you said we left its repairs up to billionaires, or for home power production. Solar farms are not good.

Nuclear is seen as bad because oil execs don't want it to be seen as good. If the earth gets hit with a solar flare Diesel generators keep the pumps running, and perhaps they can use generated power to power the pumps. Nuclear cores are also thousands of degrees so an area going from 25°C to 30°C, while bad for literally anything else, likely won't affect the power plant. The water is also turned into steam, so there's probably a way to keep it in a loop (but that probably doesn't make sense to do since it's never been done). The water of course isn't wasted but that's the argument with data centers; the evaporated water goes somewhere else.

Also the billionaires don't think they will live on mars. They think that they will die before it turns to shit OR that they can pay the problems away.

Edit: add literally all of this

1

u/PrincipleFlaky Aug 23 '26 edited Aug 23 '26

You’re arguing with me here, but you’re not actually addressing what I said. You’re either reiterating points I already made, going completely off topic, or arguing against something I never said.

You said:
”You can have batteries that
provide emergency power.”

Yes. That’s literally part of my point. I said renewable energy needs massive battery storage or some other form of backup when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. You’re not disagreeing with me here. You’re reiterating what I said.

And this is exactly why I brought up Elon Musk and Tesla’s Gigafactories. Musk was literally selling the idea that massively scaling battery production was necessary to transition the world to sustainable energy. He talked about needing roughly 100 Gigafactories to produce batteries on the scale necessary for a global sustainable-energy transition.

So yes, I’m aware batteries can provide backup. That’s the point I was making.

You said:
“Solar is quite inefficient.”

Okay, but that’s not even the argument I was making. I never said solar is useless. I said solar and wind are intermittent. When the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing, you need storage, transmission, demand management, hydro, nuclear, natural gas, or some other source of electricity to fill the gap.

So telling me solar is inefficient doesn’t actually address the intermittency problem I was talking about.

Your arguments:
“Nuclear and water.”

This is where you’ve really misunderstood what I was saying.
I was NOT saying nuclear plants “use up all the water.”

I understand perfectly well that water is part of a cooling and steam cycle and that the water cycle continues. I’m not under the impression that a nuclear reactor vaporizes water out of existence.
My point was about where you put a nuclear power plant.

I think it is precarious as hell to put nuclear plants directly on oceans, major rivers, or other bodies of water that can be affected by flooding, storm surge, erosion, rising sea levels, extreme weather, contamination, or other environmental disasters.

Fukushima is literally an example of why the location and surrounding environment of a nuclear plant matter. You don’t put a nuclear facility in a location where the surrounding environment can become part of the disaster and then act like geography is irrelevant.

That’s why I specifically brought up Palo Verde in Arizona. It’s a nuclear plant in the desert that uses treated municipal wastewater for cooling rather than being dependent on a major river, lake, or ocean right next to the facility.

THAT is what I was talking about.

You said:
“The reactor is thousands of degrees, so going from 25°C to 30°C probably won’t matter.”

That’s not how cooling works.
The fact that the reactor core is extremely hot does not mean the temperature of the cooling system or the environment is irrelevant. The entire point of the cooling system is to remove heat from the reactor and ultimately reject that heat somewhere.

And again, you’re arguing against a point I wasn’t even primarily making. My concern was the vulnerability of the facility and its cooling infrastructure to the surrounding environment.

Extreme heat, drought, flooding, storm surge, water temperature, and water availability can all matter depending on the plant’s design and cooling system.

You said:
“If there’s a solar flare, diesel generators can keep the pumps running.”

Yes. That’s called a backup system.

I mentioned a solar flare as one hypothetical example of a catastrophic event that could knock out the grid. My point was that nuclear facilities, like everything else, depend on backup systems when the primary electrical supply is disrupted.

You’re not disproving my point by telling me that emergency generators exist. You’re literally describing the backup system I’m talking about.

And a sufficiently severe grid failure is not just a question of whether a generator exists. Backup equipment requires fuel, maintenance, functioning pumps, functioning controls, operators, communications, and all the other infrastructure necessary to keep the system operating.

You said:
“The water isn’t wasted because it turns into steam and eventually goes somewhere else.”

Again, you’re arguing against something I never said.

I never said the water is destroyed. Of course evaporated water eventually goes back into the hydrological cycle.

But water can still be consumed locally even though the molecules aren’t destroyed. If water evaporates from a cooling system, it doesn’t necessarily return to the same river, reservoir, or aquifer at the same place and time where the plant needs it.

But honestly, this wasn’t even my primary argument about nuclear in the first place. You’re taking one aspect of what I said and turning it into an argument I wasn’t making.

And the billionaire/Mars point absolutely stands.

You said:
“Billionaires don’t think they’re going to live on Mars.”

Some absolutely fucking do.

Elon Musk has spent years explicitly promoting the goal of making humanity a multiplanetary species and establishing a human presence on Mars.

And I’m obviously not saying every billionaire literally believes they’re personally going to move to Mars. I’m talking about a broader mentality among the ultrawealthy that they can somehow insulate themselves from societal collapse.

That can mean Mars. It can mean private compounds. It can mean bunkers. It can mean buying remote property in places like New Zealand. It can mean hiring private security and consulting survival experts about where the safest places would be if society collapses.

There has literally been reporting and documentary coverage about extremely wealthy people preparing for societal collapse and asking security professionals where they could go to survive it.

And here’s the point: once money itself stops having value because the social and economic systems that give money its value have collapsed, your billion dollars isn’t going to magically save you.

You still need people who can grow food, maintain generators, repair infrastructure, provide medical care, maintain communications, manufacture replacement parts, transport supplies, and keep civilization functioning.

So whether the fantasy is “I’ll escape to Mars” or “I’ll hide in my compound in New Zealand with armed security,” the underlying mentality is the same: how do I personally insulate myself from the collapse instead of how do we prevent the collapse in the first place?

And THAT is what I was saying about billionaires and climate change.

I’m not saying individual people shouldn’t do their part. Of course they should. But an ordinary person changing their lightbulbs, recycling, buying an electric car, or putting solar panels on their roof is not going to restructure global energy production, transportation, industry, or infrastructure.

People who control enormous amounts of wealth and investment have vastly more ability to influence those systems than ordinary individuals do.

That’s why I said it’s depressing that so much of the responsibility for fixing these massive systemic problems ultimately comes down to whether the people with the most money and influence decide it’s in their interest to actually fix them.

So I’m honestly confused about what exactly you’re disagreeing with.

You’re saying batteries can provide backup: yes, that’s my point.

You’re saying wind and solar aren’t great as continuous sources by themselves: yes, that’s my point about intermittency.

You’re saying nuclear produces very little CO2: yes, I know that.
You’re explaining that nuclear plants use water in cooling and steam cycles: yes, I know that. That’s not what I was arguing.

You’re saying emergency generators can keep nuclear cooling systems running: yes, that’s the backup system I was talking about.

You’re explaining that billionaires may think they can survive collapse through wealth, security, compounds, or other means rather than literally moving to Mars: yes, that’s also part of the point I was making.

So you’ve spent this entire response arguing with points I didn’t make, reiterating several points I DID make, and then disagreeing with me about something I never actually said.

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

0

u/Xlxlredditor Aug 23 '26

You said:
“The water isn’t wasted because it turns into steam and eventually goes somewhere else.”

Again, you’re arguing against something I never said.

I never said the water is destroyed. Of course evaporated water eventually goes back into the hydrological cycle.

But water can still be consumed locally even though the molecules aren’t destroyed. If water evaporates from a cooling system, it doesn’t necessarily return to the same river, reservoir, or aquifer at the same place and time where the plant needs it.

I also added "The water of course isn't wasted but that's the argument with data centers; the evaporated water goes somewhere else.", but that's not the point.

This thing is I AM NOT OUTRIGHT SAYING YOU ARE WRONG. Many of your points are very correct; there are, however, some views I disagree with.

So telling me solar is inefficient doesn’t actually address the intermittency problem I was talking about.

The "intermittency problem" is why I was talking about batteries.

I Specifically disagree with this:

Like, how’s that gonna work when there’s no water to cool down your reactors and also when it gets so oppressively hot that you literally can’t cool down your cooling towers? It’s just dangerous, or if the Earth gets hit with a massive solar flare and knocks out the power grid, just for example.

Which I explained in my original comment that this was, possibly, incorrect: "Nuclear cores are also thousands of degrees so an area going from 25°C to 30°C, while bad for literally anything else, likely won't affect the power plant."

Furthermore:

Your arguments:
“Nuclear and water.”

This is where you’ve really misunderstood what I was saying.
I was NOT saying nuclear plants “use up all the water.”

I understand perfectly well that water is part of a cooling and steam cycle and that the water cycle continues. I’m not under the impression that a nuclear reactor vaporizes water out of existence.
My point was about where you put a nuclear power plant.

I think it is precarious as hell to put nuclear plants directly on oceans, major rivers, or other bodies of water that can be affected by flooding, storm surge, erosion, rising sea levels, extreme weather, contamination, or other environmental disasters.

Fukushima is literally an example of why the location and surrounding environment of a nuclear plant matter. You don’t put a nuclear facility in a location where the surrounding environment can become part of the disaster and then act like geography is irrelevant.

That’s why I specifically brought up Palo Verde in Arizona. It’s a nuclear plant in the desert that uses treated municipal wastewater for cooling rather than being dependent on a major river, lake, or ocean right next to the facility.

Fukushima is a study in how massive companies want the cheapest done. While the risk of flooding and tsunamis was calculated, TEPCO, the company responsible for the plant, built a wall too small in order to reduce costs: "An unnamed employee of the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) that owns the ruined Fukushima Daiichi or No.1, Nuclear Power Plant testified during a trial this week that a 2008 safety test showed an earthquake could cause a tsunami as high as 52 feet capable of pounding the coastal facility, according to The Asahi Shimbun. The company was initially set to build a seawall, but the employee told the court that former TEPCO Vice President Sakae Muto suddenly dismissed the idea." Link to source. But I agree. Don't build nuclear plants on earthquake/tsunami/natural-disaster-prone land, that's a good idea.

Also, your writing style changed completely in this comment which is weird but I understand, I also talk weird when I'm arguing with someone/in an essay.

1

u/PrincipleFlaky Aug 23 '26

It’s like you’re deliberately missing my point here.

That is NOT my point when I say, “How is that going to work when there’s no water?”

I am not saying the water magically disappears when it becomes steam. I understand the water cycle.

I’m talking about water availability for cooling a nuclear power plant when the water supply itself is under extreme stress.

Are you aware that we are in an extreme drought?

Are you aware that the Colorado River is in a severe water crisis and that the federal government has just finalized major water-use cuts for Arizona, California, and Nevada because of it? Those states are already having to make painful decisions about who gets how much water.

Consequently, you realize that we are already having power problems because we’re losing water? I’m talking about traditional hydropower, not nuclear.

We’re already seeing water levels in dams and reservoirs get so low that it’s affecting our ability to generate electricity. Look at Hoover Dam and Glen Canyon Dam. Lake Mead and Lake Powell are getting so low that hydropower generation itself is being threatened.

So if we’re already struggling to maintain enough water for conventional electricity generation, what happens when a nuclear plant doesn’t have enough water available for the cooling it requires?

That’s my point.

I’m not saying the water disappears when it turns to steam. I’m saying the water supply itself is becoming increasingly unreliable, and with nuclear power, the consequences of losing adequate cooling are potentially far more serious than simply losing generating capacity.

So what happens when a nuclear plant is dependent on a river, reservoir, or other water source that is experiencing drought, declining water levels, or water temperatures that are too high for the plant’s normal cooling operation?

That isn’t some theoretical problem. Water availability can directly affect electricity generation, and the federal government’s own drought information says reduced water supplies can lead to reduced energy production or even temporary closure of energy facilities.

And we’re seeing this happen in the real world. Just this month, the Paks nuclear plant in Hungary had to drastically reduce its output because drought had driven the Danube’s water level down and threatened the water supply needed for cooling.

So when I said “How is that going to work when there’s no water?”, I was talking about the vulnerability of relying on water-dependent cooling infrastructure in a climate where drought, heat, declining river flows, and competition for water are becoming increasingly serious problems.

I’m not arguing that nuclear plants literally drink up all the water and make it disappear.
I’m asking what happens when the water you depend on for cooling isn’t reliably available.
That’s a completely different argument.

Why do you think I even brought up Phoenix and the fact that Palo Verde uses treated wastewater to cool its nuclear reactors? Because that’s the one nuclear plant I was pointing to that isn’t dependent on a natural body of water for cooling. Even then, its cooling water ultimately comes from the municipal wastewater system, so if Phoenix ever reaches the point where the city itself can no longer maintain its water supply and has to shut down, Palo Verde can’t just keep operating indefinitely. That’s exactly the kind of dependency and vulnerability I’m talking about.