Is this worse than Obama pretending to drink Flint's water?

  • privatized_sun [none/use name]
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do not give anti-nuclear people an inch

    Getting rid of a few reactors is a bad idea, but so is building thousands of them:

    2011: "Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs”

    news summary: https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

    full PDF: “Is Nuclear Power Globally Scalable?” https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/5/6021970/06021978.pdf

    people scared about this are no different from anti-vaxxers

    TIL a needle can semi-permanently create zones like in Stalker

    • iridaniotter [she/her]
      ·
      1 year ago

      It would take eons for exclusion zones to add up to all the land taken up by non-nuclear sources of energy lol. But since human civilization dropped the ball in the 20th century, there's little point in arguing for a nuclear-dominant grid with thousands of reactors nowadays. May as well do like 80% renewable and 20% nuclear generally speaking.

    • ClimateChangeAnxiety [he/him, they/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      TIL a needle can semi-permanently create zones like in Stalker

      Infectious diseases are far more destructive than any nuclear accident has ever been so idk what your point is?

    • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      1 year ago

      It's not supposed to supply 100% of the world's energy needs, it's supposed to be a transitional source to move away from fossil fuels and then to renewables. We can build both renewable and nuclear, or we can build renewable and fossil fuels. One of these is much more harmful for the environment. In an ideal world we could just go 100% renewable immediately, but unfortunately that isn't an option. So it's better to go with the "less harmful" option than the "will literally kill the planet and all of us" option instead.