this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
678 points (86.4% liked)

Memes

45578 readers
1494 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
678
Power Sources (lemmy.zip)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

.. but that's literally not true?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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 I was using outdated information, my bad.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)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

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.