this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2110 points (94.3% liked)

World News

38607 readers
3175 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hyperi0n@lemmy.film 2 points 1 year ago (13 children)

So does hydro, solar and wind energy generation.

Hydro is the better option but requires changes to water supply, solar requires massive fields of empty land, wind generation is loud and disturbs local wildlife while at the same time has the largest fail rate.

Nuclear is the best option. It's the cheapest when considering the energy output, most environmentally friendly, and takes up the least amount of space.

The largest radioactive disaster was misuse of medical equipment.

[–] Sheeprevenge@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Nuclear is the best option. It's the cheapest when considering the energy output, most environmentally friendly, and takes up the least amount of space.

It's the most environmentally friendly, if you don't consider that it is not renewable and that there are no waste management solutions for the highly radioactive waste.

[–] WhiteHawk@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It not being renewable doesn't really matter when talking about its CO2 emissions. And the neat thing is, radioactive waste decays on its own so the "waste management" needed is to bury it somewhere and leave it there. It ain't that complicated.

[–] Sheeprevenge@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

It's a bit more complicated. Where are you gonna bury it? It has to be somewhere, where normally nobody is. Also you have to keep the waste containers safe (and in one piece) for a very, very long time. How are you gonna mark it that people thousands of years in the future still know that it is dangerous?

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)