• Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    18 hours ago

    So you see how it’s bad, unless we’re talking about humans literally dying as a result.

    Yay? Am I supposed to give nuclear a point because “only” the environment and animal life was trashed? Okay, sure. “Less Deadly To Humans” than oil. Y’know people still eat Gulf seafood, but if that pipe was spewing radioactive waste for a month, they wouldn’t.

    Actually, they probably would. I dunno. Renewables. That’s all.

    • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Yay? Am I supposed to give nuclear a point because “only” the environment and animal life was trashed?

      You’re missing the part where Fukushima and Chernobyl were the only major/catastrophic nuclear power accidents in history (edit: aside from a wild one from the 50s before we really understood nuclear energy). And both of them were a result of both bad policy and, more importantly, bad tech/design.

      Chernobyl was especially stupid on literally every level possible.

      And, like I said earlier but you seem to have “forgotten”, nuclear is safer (has caused less deaths) than ALL other forms of power generation (including renewables) other than solar. And it’s almost on par with solar.

      Everything has trade-offs.

      Solar needs a LOT of land, works only during the day. Less effective the further north/south you get from the equator.

      Wind only works well in certain regions, and requires a significant amount of concrete to build.

      Wave power generation only works along coastlines or out at sea. And transmitting that power to where it’s needed isn’t easy and is costly.

      Hydro dams are extremely limited to where they can be built, and transitional designs are extremely damaging (although newer types are much better)

      Nuclear plants can be built just about anywhere. And newer designs are extremely safe. Canada’s CanDu reactors are practically instructable.

      A proper solution is a baseline of nuclear with wind, solar, hydro being built where possible.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Everything has trade-offs.

        No shit?

        Solar needs a LOT of land, works only during the day. Less effective the further north/south you get from the equator.

        Guess what - we already take up a lot of land. Put some solar panels up there ffs. And geothermal’s a thing just fyi.

        Wave power generation only works along coastlines or out at sea.

        Damn you’re full of useful information.

        Nuclear plants can be built just about anywhere. And newer designs are extremely safe. Canada’s CanDu reactors are practically instructable.

        Instructable? Cool. That’s a thing nuclear designs should be.

        A proper solution is a baseline of nuclear with wind, solar, hydro being built where possible.

        We actually agree on that but your nuclear blathering takes too long. You got a 10’ x 10’ reactor for Hudson Bay then kudos, NOW can we get renewables set up OH AND a distribution network for our friends too far north or south to benefit from 12 hours of sun a day like in Norway o wait