this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
307 points (92.8% liked)

Asklemmy

43984 readers
936 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
307
Why has the world started to mine coal again? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
301 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

With climate change looming, it seems so completely backwards to go back to using it again.

Is it coal miners pushing to keep their jobs? Fear of nuclear power? Is purely politically motivated, or are there genuinely people who believe coal is clean?

Edit, I will admit I was ignorant to the usage of coal nowadays.

Now I'm more depressed than when I posted this

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  • Fukushima
  • Chernobyl
  • 3-Mile Island to name a few
[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes yes, we know people don't understand statistics.

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm looking forward to seeing your Instagram snaps once you move back to pripyat permanently. Statistics never tell the full story.

[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Ah yes, the clusterfuck of the 20th century is the lode stone

Also Pripyat isn't that bad.

[โ€“] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If you're referring to the nukes-are-statistically-safe argument, then to be fair, you also have to take into account the scale of their failures.

[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Right it would be something involving number of people harmed, for number of joules or watt-hours of energy produced. How much injury, death, etc is there on a per-unit basis. That would be how you'd get a probability of harm. Then you could compare it numerically with other forms of energy to see which is the safest, statistically speaking.