this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
145 points (91.4% liked)
Hacker News
4122 readers
2 users here now
This community serves to share top posts on Hacker News with the wider fediverse.
Rules
0. Keep it legal
- Keep it civil and SFW
- Keep it safe for members of marginalised groups
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The ones supporting coal over anything are probably big ass energy companies your government and billionares have ties with. Climate activists do not advocate for coal
They do by opposing nuclear. Good examples in Germany and in my home country Finland. Solar/wind cant replace nuclear by themselves. The old gen activists didnt really have the capacity to think that far with scientific mind nut unfortunately with emotion.
Sounds like you are the one thinking by emotion. Climate activists do not advocate for coal or oil and they don't run germany or finland.
They did run germanys nuclear down. That increases the usage of coal. In finland the activists have opposed nuclear as well which has droven usage of coal up. This is one of the big reasons the green party lost the election so colossally here few months ago. Im driven by science and facts provided by science. Anybody opposing nuclear doesnt know/understand enough about the subject and is droven by emotion.
The increase of coal did not happen because of activists promoting green energy, it actually happened because your government (the really same that should be in charge for nuclear) doesn't give a shit and push for coal anyway.
Seem the other way around to me, anyone with the slightest awareness and not driven by personal interests can easy understand the issues of nuclear and the advantage of green energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_%27Ndrangheta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Incidents
You do realize that your links just prove the nuclear energys safety? There have been few tens of incidents over the years and every single one is documented with care and overall the amount of casualities is miniscule. We’ve had more people dying from hydro by itself.
Nuclear is greener energy than many of the other alternatives. It doesnt take much space in the nature and produces miniscule amount of waste that is easily stored and by nature will cease to exist in it’s radiant form over the years.
Nuclear is part of green energy movement and the most important piece of it. By this date no other form of green energy is capable of replacing nuclear. Not an opinion but a fact. It just really seems people still opposing nuclear dont understand how it produces energy, how strict the safety measurements are and how little waste it produces.
Yes the one from the first link is so much documented that journalists documenting it got murdered
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilaria_Alpi
Nuclear being "greener" than coal does not mean that it is green.
Having enough iodide pills for everyone and plans for a nuclear disaster do not make nuclear safe.
Nuclear is greener than hydro and has caused less casualties than hydro. That should be well enough indicator of nuclears greeness to the common folk.
Yeah, sure. People murder people. We still have religion around alltough thats well documented of killing people daily and raping children.
You are really overplaying anything negative thats even loosely linked on nuclear. Modern well managed nuclear is the most environmentally friendly source of energy. It takes so little space, produces so little easily managed waste and enormous amounts of energy. With all the facts and statistics its a no brainer.
So little manged waste that the mafia can easily ship it to somalia and dump it in the wild.
This is proven wrong by the second link posted earlier.