• The_v@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    The worst nuclear disaster has led to 1,000sq miles of land being unsafe for human inhabitants.

    Using fossil fuels for power is destroying of the entire planet.

    It’s really not that complicated.

    • abraxas@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • pedroapero@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        You mean under ground from where it was dug out?

    • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      Both sound terrible.

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

      • Astrealix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

        • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

          • Astrealix@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year 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.

        • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • SocialEngineer56@notdigg.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year 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.

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hello, my German friend. I hope your gas reserves are full and coal dust is filling your lungs. /joke