5 ms·
Not sure which is safer, I believe some research suggests more people die from coal mining then from nuclear energy. See for example this: https://ourworldinda
by wsc981 7y ago
Not sure which is safer, I believe some research suggests more people die from coal mining then from nuclear energy. See for example this: https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
- kristopolous 7y agoCoal mining also needs to go.
- TremendousJudge 7y agoGreat. Coal mining could have gone in the forty years ago if nuclear had replaced coal. But I guess it was too dangerous, so now we get to live the hottest years on record. Yay for safety, everybody truly did a great job.
- kristopolous 7y agoFalse equivalency. US is a net coal exporter. If we were 100% nuclear the mining would be the same and it'd be exported. Not a solution. Instead, Swanson's curve should have been accelerated pushing the cost economics of solar to have made it competitive at an earlier date. Then you wouldn't need global legislative compliance, it'd have been cheaper earlier
- TremendousJudge 7y agoI never mentioned the US.
- kristopolous 7y agoWhat were you referring to then? Also, there's more to power than coal and nuclear
- wallace_f 7y agoPeople believe all of the following: >Coal needs to go >Nuclear needs to go >High energy (even unsubsidized gasoline) is politically untenable >Economic deprrssion from 1 and 2 is not tolerable, also
- kristopolous 7y agoAwful broken solutions aren't acceptable. Not in programming, building things, or running society.
- wallace_f 7y agoThe world isn't perfect, and I'm sure your code isn't, either. It's a series of trade-offs.
- kristopolous 7y agoSolutions that work for a while but destroy everything in the process aren't solutions. This isn't some cost/benefit stuff. Single use plastics and building concrete urban blight isn't worth a mass Extinction and global dieoff event. Especially with things like carbon negative concrete available. Not the same thing It's bad solutions, when good ones are available, at massive scale, to address things that either aren't problems or could be addressed in other ways.
- ZeroGravitas 7y agoCoal and Nuclear are both expensive, they just get their hidden subsidies in different ways. Getting rid of them therefore won't cause economic depression, just affect the profits of specific well connected people, so they'll hang around longer than they should.
- wallace_f 7y agoAfaik nuclear appears to be expensive mostly because of excessive regulatory code/capture, and political risk.