▲ 2206 ▼ Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance (www.theguardian.com) submitted 2 years ago by sv1sjp@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world 1121 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml [B] -10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ultracritical@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's not unfair, nor is it misleading. Coal contains a few parts per million of uranium. Sometimes more depending on source. So when burned this uranium is released into the atmosphere. When used for fission uranium has about 200 million times the energy density then burning the carbon carbon bonds in coal. So kilo for kilo a coal power plant dumps about as much uranium and other nasty trace elements into the atmosphere then a nuclear plant has in it's core. The situation is even more unfavorable for coal as nuke plants don't typically dump any of their primary radioactive elements to atmosphere. Increasing scale of nuclear doesn't change this either as it would require every nuclear plant on the planet to go full Chernobyl just to match what coal outputs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml [B] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Fuck of with that false dichotomy shit. Just because something isn't fair (like life), doesn’t mean it’s misleading. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml [B] -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ultracritical@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's not unfair, nor is it misleading. Coal contains a few parts per million of uranium. Sometimes more depending on source. So when burned this uranium is released into the atmosphere. When used for fission uranium has about 200 million times the energy density then burning the carbon carbon bonds in coal. So kilo for kilo a coal power plant dumps about as much uranium and other nasty trace elements into the atmosphere then a nuclear plant has in it's core. The situation is even more unfavorable for coal as nuke plants don't typically dump any of their primary radioactive elements to atmosphere. Increasing scale of nuclear doesn't change this either as it would require every nuclear plant on the planet to go full Chernobyl just to match what coal outputs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml [B] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml [B] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Fuck of with that false dichotomy shit. Just because something isn't fair (like life), doesn’t mean it’s misleading. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml [B] -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml [B] -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent