• deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    What if he burned down every house within 50 miles and the landscape didn’t recover for decades? What if it happened again and again?

    • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      What if we constantly subsidized industries that made our climate unlivable?

      Nuclear is a sound option. We already deal with mining wastes that must be managed in perpetuity. Nuclear waste isn’t much different in that regard.

      Your point about landscapes also happens in mining.

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yes, we should be moving to solar instead of propping up uneconomic polluting industries like nuclear or coal.

        • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I fully support solar and wind but I don’t think it’s a one size fits all at this point. I think solar needs to get a lot more efficient and better to cover all the applications that oil and gas and coal do.

          Even renewables need mining (sadly) which has significant impacts.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Doing something because it’s the “most economical” is why we have a climate catastrophe on our hands. Plus solar can’t actually provide steady power on it’s own and never will be able to. Exotic nation wide energy storage solutions do not exists at our current level of technology. Instead solar/wind has to be offset by natural gas power plants.

        • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Nuclear rarely ever perceived as a polluter in such discussions because there’s not much waste compared to nearly everything else. The major problem is with its’ very slow and expensive roll out and how gas\coal industries hate the guts of a technology that’s proven effective - so Germany famously rolled their nuclear programs back and got dependent on russian gas, thanks Schröeder (now works in russian oil companies, kek), Merkel and so-called greens.

    • finderscult@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Just a reminder, coal power releases more radiation per year than the totality of radiation released by nuclear power including all nuclear accidents and disasters… And it’s not even close.

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s disingenuous to compare radiation which is diffused globally via the atmosphere with ground contamination which is localized and thousands of times too dangerous for human habitation.

        You’re saying don’t worry about the toxic waste dump next door because there’s air pollution everywhere.

        • finderscult@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Boy have I got news for you, coal is also worse in terms of ground and water pollution by a factor of 4… Without counting coal mining which is basically the most long term harmful activity to the environment humans can do.

    • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      What if instead of scary magic rocks that release bad juju, what if we went back to the burney rocks that also put out even more bad juju than the scary rocks and makes the sky fairies mad and fired up? That would protect us from the scary event, even if it was much worse long term.