World News

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Except that nuclear isn't the only, or even the cheapest, alternative to fossil fuels.

parent

[–] untakenusername@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

If solar was used everywhere then it would also require a large investment in batteries to power stuff in the night There's pros and cons for everything and probably the best solution is to have several green energy sources, solar, wind, nuclear ect.

parent

[–] pedroapero@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

Except that powering the world with nuclear would require thousands of reactors and so much more disasters. This doesn't even factor the space abandonned to store «normal» toxic materials.

parent

[–] uis@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

This doesn't even factor the space abandonned to store «normal» toxic materials.

You mean under ground from where it was dug out?

parent

[–] pedroapero@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

The plant itself, water inevitably getting in contact with wastes and leaking also.

parent

[–] uis@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

You mean water under ground? It was in contact million years before any of us was born.

parent

[–] pedroapero@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

Million years were sufficient for the radioactivity to decay before life started to evolve on earth.

parent

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

Then how does it fuel nuclear reactors?

parent

[+] umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee -15 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Both sound terrible.

I don’t really want to pick the lessor of two evils when it comes to the energy.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

By not picking, you are picking fossil fuels. Because we can't fully replace everything with solar/wind yet, and fossil fuels are already being burned as we speak.

parent

[–] umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

No, give me an option that doesn’t make a part of the world uninhabitable or increases climate change.

That just a stupid comparison and is there any reason why we can’t also do wind solar thermal hydro also? It’s fossil fuels or nuclear and that’s it?

parent

[–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

You posted this 21 hours ago. I believe I answered you already.

parent

[–] umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Yeah I’m getting some strange issues with memmy today sorry.

parent

[–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

All good

parent

[–] umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

No, give me an option that doesn’t make a part of the world uninhabitable or increases climate change.

That just a stupid comparison and is there any reason why we can’t also do wind solar thermal hydro also? It’s fossil fuels or nuclear and that’s it huh?

parent

[–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I never said we can't do also wind, solar, thermal, and hydro; in fact we have to do all of them. But, hydro isn't possible in most places (and also makes "a part of the world uninhabitable" too — look at how much the Three Gorges Dam displaced, for example), nor is geothermal. And wind and solar are inconsistent — great as part of it, but they can't be the entirety of the grid, unless you want the entire country to go dark on a cloudy day, cuz we simply can't make batteries store that much.

parent

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

We are on a time limit thanks to climate change. We can't afford to complain about picking the lessor of two evils.

parent

[+] umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee -7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The option proposed is that making a small area of the planet inhabitable or worsening climate change. Sorry but that’s a shitty comparison.

parent

[–] SocialEngineer56@notdigg.com 5 points 2 years ago

No. The original comment said the “worst disaster made a very small she’s of the planet uninhabitable”. Keep in mind this disaster was the result of Soviet incompetence and completely avoidable with standards implemented in the US.

They’re saying our “worst case scenario” using nuclear power is better than worst case scenario continuing to use fossil fuels.

Likelihood of worse case scenario using nuclear power is also extremely low. Whereas worst case scenario (billions of people dying) for continuing to use fossil fuels is EXTREMELY HIGH.

parent

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

Bet you’d feel* differently if you were a resident of one of the island nations that’s going to drown in the next decade or two. That part of the world’s definitely going to be uninhabitable if we continue to do nothing.

parent

[–] umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

So installing a nuclear reactor in my province where we have ample hydro electric power options would save that island?

It’s like you are yell at everyone saying nuclear power or die. There are lots of options to clean reliable energy. In some cases nuclear will be the best option but not always.

parent

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago*

I’m not that pro-nuclear. You just made a shitty comparison ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edit: Also if you think hydro is the solution, again, more uninhabitable land. Dams are their own ecological disaster.

https://youtu.be/AL57dSIXqBM

parent

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago

You called me suspicious so here I am fulfilling that expectation. Here’s a fucking great video on why dams, and therefore hydro power, are dangerous and ecologically damaging. The only point I was trying to make is that your argument against nuclear, that it might cause an area of land to become uninhabitable, is flawed. Dams always make an area of land uninhabitable.

parent

[+] doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml [B] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

parent

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

This is an important comment. We need to collectively, outright, use less of everything.

Admittedly, fighting even my own goddamn subconscious and its desires is tough. "Get that new motorcycle, it's got better emissions standards than your old bike"... old one's just fine.

parent