18 ms·

What we have right now are three options : fossil fuels, renewable sources like wind/solar/hydro, or nuclear. Fossil fuels kill millions a year related to poll

What we have right now are three options : fossil fuels, renewable sources like wind/solar/hydro, or nuclear. Fossil fuels kill millions a year related to pollution, and does make whole areas unlivable. About 16% of all fracking oil in the US gets spilled in nature every year[1], on top of crap like Flint. Coal is responsible for 80% of energy-generated related air pollution, worldwide[2]. They are not a good solution. Natural sources are simply extremely limited in terms of access. Few countries can realistically really rely on these as a main source of electricity. The, there's nuclear. We have fission, which is, while relatively safe (5 major impactful accidents since the rise of nuclear power, 3 of those being the three Fukishima plants), pretty damaging _when_ shit happens. However, are the damages realistically worse than fossil fuels? I'm not exactly qualified to figure this out myself but just looking at the numbers really doesn't make fission look that bad. Finally, there's nuclear fusion, which is a lot safer, while we've been making decent progress in the recent years, doesn't look like it's gonna run our cities any time soon. So no, we shouldn't be burning coal, obviously, but if nothing's perfect, the logical option is the next best thing. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39032748 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39032748 [2] https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/decrease-coal-use https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/decrease-coal-use

vonmoltke 8y ago
> on top of crap like Flint Flint's water contamination has absolutely nothing to do with energy production of any kind. It was caused by the city still having lead water pipes. Edit: > About 16% of all fracking oil in the US gets spilled in nature every year[1] > [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39032748 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39032748 That isn't at all what that article says. It says 16% of wells suffer a spill each year. The industry would never allow 16% of its product to simply go to waste, particularly considering how difficult and expensive those operations are.
- folkrav 8y ago
  I'm not american, seems like I mixed up Flint with some other american city that made the news up here for having water catching fire and shit like that. And indeed, I misread, it's not 16% total spillage but 16% of them spilling at all. This one doesn't really change much to my point that having one in six fracking points spilling out is extremely damaging.

vonmoltke 8y ago

> on top of crap like Flint Flint's water contamination has absolutely nothing to do with energy production of any kind. It was caused by the city still having lead water pipes. Edit: > About 16% of all fracking oil in the US gets spilled in nature every year[1] > [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39032748 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39032748 That isn't at all what that article says. It says 16% of wells suffer a spill each year. The industry would never allow 16% of its product to simply go to waste, particularly considering how difficult and expensive those operations are.

folkrav 8y ago
I'm not american, seems like I mixed up Flint with some other american city that made the news up here for having water catching fire and shit like that. And indeed, I misread, it's not 16% total spillage but 16% of them spilling at all. This one doesn't really change much to my point that having one in six fracking points spilling out is extremely damaging.