you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 62 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah things blow up

I would stop them right there and ask when the last oil spill was.

It was last month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago

    Even without oil spills. The fossil fuel method of dealing with waste is to vent it into the atmosphere. Nuclear only does that when something goes very wrong, and even then it causes significantly fewer fatalities.

    You could have a Chernobyl every single day and still kill fewer people than coal and oil.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Why do you think that those against nuclear energy are for fossil fuels? My building has solar panels, and backup power comes from either wind turbines or the hydraulic dam down the river.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    The overwhelming resistance to nuclear is pushed by people who want us to stay on fossil fuels, and the number of people suggesting renewables usally state their preferences in the comments alongside their criticism (whether the criticism is valid or not).

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    one dangerous thing being less unsafe than another doesn't make it safe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    yeah, decentralised photovoltaic- & -thermic cells, wind and river turbines, biomass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Solar's a little bit less killy than nuclear (people die when mining raw materials and from falling off rooftops when installing panels) and wind turbines are a little more dangerous than nuclear (mining raw materials, falls during installation/maintenance and people burning to death during maintenance), but hydroelectric power is much more dangerous than nuclear (mainly from drownings after dams burst). Until very recently, nuclear was the safest means of power generation by a wide margin, so if safety is the main concern, there should be a lot more of it.

    A big reason for this is that a single nuclear power plant can power a city despite having the same footprint as a small village worth of wind turbines or solar panels and running for decades off a wheelbarrow of fuel, so there's much less for construction workers and miners to do and fewer opportunities for them to die. It only kills when there's an accident bad enough to make international news and remain in the public consciousness for decades, and accidents that bad have only happened a handful of times.

  • source
  • parent