this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
657 points (69.5% liked)

Memes

45690 readers
1387 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] NessD@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, it's not the best we have. Solar and wind are way safer, cost less and don't produce waste.

Sure, nuclear power is safe until it isn't. Fukushima and Chernobyl are examples of that. Nuclear plants in Ukraine were at risk during Russian attacks. Even if you have a modern plant, you don't really think that under capitalism there is an incentive to care properly for them in the long run. Corners will be cut.

Besides that they produce so much waste that has to be: a) being transported b) stored somewhere

Looking at the US railroad system and how it is pushed beyond it's capacity right now and seeing how nuclear waste sites are literally rotting and contaminating everything around them I'd say it's one of the least safe energies. Especially if you have clean alternatives that don't produce waste.

[โ€“] tehWrapper@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago

You cannot make a solar panel without waste. Is it better, remains to be seen.. But saying solar and wind is zero waste is not the view to have.

They can also be made in ways that cut cost and harm the environment.