12 ms·
but, if coal burning continues to pump out carbon dioxide into our atmosphere and eventually completely upend any semblance of stable environment... wouldn’t it
by beowulfey 6y ago
but, if coal burning continues to pump out carbon dioxide into our atmosphere and eventually completely upend any semblance of stable environment... wouldn’t it be preferred to make not doing that a priority?
- _nalply 6y agoIt's not about nuclear vs coal but about nuclear vs renewables. Just shut down both coal and nuclear!
- sofixa 6y agoAnd what happens when there's a storm? Renewables alone can't provide all the power needed over extended periods of time without very significant storage, for which there is no large scale cost effective solution actually implemented.
- _nalply 6y agoNuclear power also shuts down when there's significant disruption from nature. Nuclear power even might do something even worse than shutting down.
- ohgodplsno 6y agoIt took a tsunami on an unmaintained nuclear power plant to cause Fukushima. It took the russians lifting off _every single security mechanism_ to cause Chernobyl. The ojer major incidents like Three Mile Island are just "well, security measures have failed, we didn't have enough fallbacks. It's broken now. Light irradiation around but nothing major". So, no, nuclear power doesn't stop for anything but the absolute worst conditions. As for the "doing even worse" part, two can play that game: hydro is renewable and yet killed hundreds of thousands. Oh no, stop hydro!
- _nalply 6y agoThe problem are the future accidents with the left-overs of nuclear. They are simply uncountable because these are in the future.
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y agoAdvanced radio chemistry will produce meta-materials which will enable time travel. Problem solved! Wheeee!