this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
657 points (86.1% liked)

Memes

45629 readers
1112 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. 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
gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml
sexy_peach@feddit.de
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
657
Power Sources (lemmy.zip)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by balderdash9@lemmy.zip to c/memes@lemmy.ml
130 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

True, but there were also concerns about the proliferation of nuclear technology and the risks of nuclear war.

If we could power the earth without nuclear or fossil fuels, that would be objectively better. But it just doesn't seem possible.

And trying to achieve an impossible goal while simultaneously burning even more carbon is irresponsible.

So we need to quickly build out the required nuclear capacity.

[–] Haui@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, I agree that there are risks involved.

I think the risks with Fossil fuels are a lot higher:

  • instead of putting nuclear waste in the ground, we pump it in the air (fossil fuel waste is radioactive)
  • instead of nuclear proliferation, we support barbarist states such as saudi arabia

So, the question between fossil and nuclear was never there. It was always nuclear and people that lobbied against it should go to jail for the rest of their lives for murder.

Now, I have no clue how far along we are. This (site)[https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/renewable-energy-by-country/] says we‘re at 17% global coverage and some people argue that rn we should invest every dollar/euro in renewables instead of nuclear.

I can understand that argument. Not sure which makes more sence though.