681
Power Sources
(lemmy.zip)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
681 points (86.2% liked)
Memes
45753 readers
946 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
~~IMO, it is if you factor in the fact that it's currently the fastest way of actually replacing the energy generated by fossil fuels before the earth becomes totally incompatible with human life.~~ Nope, I'm wrong, see replies.
.. but that's literally not true?
Actually, seems you're right though it's obviously still more complicated than either one or the other. I was using outdated information, my bad.
Did some more research. A few links:
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-why-nuclear-won-t-cut-it-if-we-want-to-drop-carbon-as-quickly-as-possible
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2020/Q2/can-renewable-energy-really-replace-fossil-fuels.html (Talks only about renewable energy but not nuclear, though I still found it helpful)
Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for looking into this further and being brave to admit when you’re wrong. That’s a really admirable quality which is way too uncommon these days!
For the safety aspect, I don’t think deaths is the most helpful comparison - considering for nuclear that many, many thousands of people will have to deal with health problems caused by radiation exposure over decades. Lots of people argue that the Chernobyl death toll should include people who die from the effects of that radiation, which would push the numbers from ~300 dead to tens of thousands.