Your problem is with the ownership of nuclear power plants, while valid, nuclear energy is still the only way we don’t kill ourselves through climate change. Say there’s one Chernobyl level disaster every decade. It’ll still be worth it.
Climate change will literally cause more fission plants to fail. IE Fukushima.
Also you're judging Chernobyl based on how bad in ended up being. Not how bad it could've been. It could've irradiated all of Europe as bad as the exclusion zone.
"The mass nationalization of all infrastructure" has the same energy as "you've activated my trap card" when you use it without any elaboration like that. Go on, do tell us how that is a solution for the energy problem without saying "well if we nationalize all infrastructure, then we can just do something different!" as though that wouldn't have already occurred by now if it was going to.
How does nationalized power infrastructure solve any environmental issue? A private power plant that burns coal is the same power plant when privatized.
Okay but we live in reality, not in fantasy land. Nuclear meltdowns are preventable, and working towards making the current society somewhere that cares about preventing meltdowns is a million times easier than inventing some mythical "ideologically pure" energy source
Nuclear disasters are noticeable and big. When a big one happens, people panic. But it almost never happens.
Oil and gas fail catastrophically all the time, pollute constantly, and destroy the planet. It's (pardon the pun) background radiation. It's the destruction that never gets news because it's so common.
deleted by creator
Your problem is with the ownership of nuclear power plants, while valid, nuclear energy is still the only way we don’t kill ourselves through climate change. Say there’s one Chernobyl level disaster every decade. It’ll still be worth it.
deleted by creator
:what-the-hell:
Climate change will literally cause more fission plants to fail. IE Fukushima.
Also you're judging Chernobyl based on how bad in ended up being. Not how bad it could've been. It could've irradiated all of Europe as bad as the exclusion zone.
deleted by creator
so what is "what the hell" about saying that taking the less bad thing would be worth it over the worse thing
deleted by creator
"The mass nationalization of all infrastructure" has the same energy as "you've activated my trap card" when you use it without any elaboration like that. Go on, do tell us how that is a solution for the energy problem without saying "well if we nationalize all infrastructure, then we can just do something different!" as though that wouldn't have already occurred by now if it was going to.
How does nationalized power infrastructure solve any environmental issue? A private power plant that burns coal is the same power plant when privatized.
OP is obfuscating to be anti-nuclear with the veneer of leftism.
Well OP should cut that shit out.
Okay but we live in reality, not in fantasy land. Nuclear meltdowns are preventable, and working towards making the current society somewhere that cares about preventing meltdowns is a million times easier than inventing some mythical "ideologically pure" energy source
Genuinely it would.
Nuclear disasters are noticeable and big. When a big one happens, people panic. But it almost never happens.
Oil and gas fail catastrophically all the time, pollute constantly, and destroy the planet. It's (pardon the pun) background radiation. It's the destruction that never gets news because it's so common.
It's also literally radioactive too. A meltdown per year still releases less radiation than we currently do just by burning shit for power.
Oil extraction has likely destroyed the Niger delta for good.
deleted by creator
I don't have any reservations about the accuracy of the comparison, but I made the same face.
Near-periphery nations such as Armenia who have nuclear power seem a more immediate threat.
Ukraine shelling the Russian-captured NPPs is a scenario that could easily reproduce itself elsewhere.