Is this worse than Obama pretending to drink Flint's water?
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
98 points (98.0% liked)
news
23555 readers
612 users here now
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today/ . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Getting rid of a few reactors is a bad idea, but so is building thousands of them:
2011: "Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs”
news summary: https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html
full PDF: “Is Nuclear Power Globally Scalable?” https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/5/6021970/06021978.pdf
TIL a needle can semi-permanently create zones like in Stalker
Infectious diseases are far more destructive than any nuclear accident has ever been so idk what your point is?
It would take eons for exclusion zones to add up to all the land taken up by non-nuclear sources of energy lol. But since human civilization dropped the ball in the 20th century, there's little point in arguing for a nuclear-dominant grid with thousands of reactors nowadays. May as well do like 80% renewable and 20% nuclear generally speaking.
It's not supposed to supply 100% of the world's energy needs, it's supposed to be a transitional source to move away from fossil fuels and then to renewables. We can build both renewable and nuclear, or we can build renewable and fossil fuels. One of these is much more harmful for the environment. In an ideal world we could just go 100% renewable immediately, but unfortunately that isn't an option. So it's better to go with the "less harmful" option than the "will literally kill the planet and all of us" option instead.