sv1sjp@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 years agoYoung climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stancewww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square1076linkfedilinkarrow-up12.39Karrow-down10
arrow-up12.39Karrow-down1external-linkYoung climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stancewww.theguardian.comsv1sjp@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 years agomessage-square1076linkfedilink
minus-squarekool_newt@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up5·3 years agoChernobyl is an acceptable outcome for you? Scary af
minus-squareSpecal@lemmy.worldBannedlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up21·3 years agoChernobyl was a worst case scenario. It has affected millions of people and will have an unknown death toll due to the inability to measure it. It’s still less harmful than any non renewal able energy source. Nuclear is a safe, intermediate bandaid while we find a long term solution.
minus-squareSemi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up2·3 years agoThis was true a decade ago but since then renewables have plummeted in price. Solar is 5x cheaper than it was a decade ago. Nuclear, meanwhile, has gone up in price by 50%.
minus-squareErtebolle@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up11·edit-23 years ago3800 people a year die from coal plant pollution in the US alone; there are, in fact, much worse things than Chernobyl
minus-squarekool_newt@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up2·3 years agoGreat reasons to not use coal either. there are, in fact, much worse things than Chernobyl So then anything not as bad is A-OK?
minus-squareErtebolle@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up5·3 years agoMore nuclear = less coal, that’s the thrust of like half of the comments here dude
minus-squarebooks@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·3 years agoI mean, we are using less coal in the US than we were… and that’s without more nuclear.
Chernobyl is an acceptable outcome for you? Scary af
Chernobyl was a worst case scenario. It has affected millions of people and will have an unknown death toll due to the inability to measure it.
It’s still less harmful than any non renewal able energy source.
Nuclear is a safe, intermediate bandaid while we find a long term solution.
This was true a decade ago but since then renewables have plummeted in price. Solar is 5x cheaper than it was a decade ago. Nuclear, meanwhile, has gone up in price by 50%.
3800 people a year die from coal plant pollution in the US alone; there are, in fact, much worse things than Chernobyl
Great reasons to not use coal either.
So then anything not as bad is A-OK?
More nuclear = less coal, that’s the thrust of like half of the comments here dude
I mean, we are using less coal in the US than we were… and that’s without more nuclear.