5 ms·

It's a good argument to replace coal energy with clean energy, but why we should replace dirty coal with dirty nuclear?

• godelski 5y ago
  > dirty nuclear That's a bold assertion. Would you care to back it up? Nuclear does not produce carbon. It's one of the safest forms of energy we have. There's a reason France has one of the lowest emission rates in the world. Killing nuclear in the 80's and 90's is clearly one of the worst mistakes we've ever made. The mistake we're making now is pitting nuclear against renewables. There's a large scientific consensus that we should _complement_ renewables with nuclear. Use renewables where we can but it is a far better option than gas. That's the choice we are currently making. Let's not make the same mistake twice, there's a lot more on the line this time.
  • drran 5y ago
    Nuclear does produce radioactive waste. It's why Chornobyl, Fukushima, Kyshtym, and few other places are inhabitable. We should clean these dirty places before we call nuclear energy «clean».