3 ms·
So you're okay with the working-as-intended continuous rolling catastrophe that is coal, but the rare and preventable fuckups of nuclear are too much? This see
by PhasmaFelis 10y ago
So you're okay with the working-as-intended continuous rolling catastrophe that is coal, but the rare and preventable fuckups of nuclear are too much?
This seems like the same risk-evaluation glitch that makes people drive long-distance instead of flying, because terrorism, even though driving is orders of magnitude more deadly even with terrorism factored in.
- flukus 10y agoThis is a false dichotomy, we have more options on the table than coal or nuclear.
- wbl 10y agoNot at 10 cents a kWh, and if we want the lights to turn on when we want.
- pdkl95 10y agoDeveloping countries currently in the process of bringing a basic[1] modern standard of living to their people. They do not have the luxury of choosing any power source other than the absolute cheapest, which is currently and will continue to be coal for a long time. Many other options become available if you fix the local economy, reduce exploitation from foreign businesses, and grow local governments into a modern democracy that is interested in long-term problems. So > [... l]et me know when you fix humans, companies and governments[.] [1] e.g. washing machines that allow ~half of their population (usually women) to have the free time to get an education and contribute to the economy instead of spending all day hand-washing clothes/etc.