• glukoza@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    The other ones don’t fail catastrophically like nuclear does.

    take a look some excerpts:

    December 1952: The Great Smog of London caused by the burning of coal, and to a lesser extent wood, killed 12,000 people within days to months due to inhalation of the smog.[18]

    The Vajont Dam in Italy overflew. Filling the reservoir caused geological failure in valley wall, leading to 110 km/h landslide into the lake; water escaped in a wave over the top of dam. Valley had been incorrectly assessed as stable. Several villages were completely wiped out, with an estimated between 1,900 and 2,500 deaths.

    as /u/afraid_of_zombies said:

    All other energy techs are allowed to have problems and produce waste except for one.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      As far as the smog goes that was before catalytic converters and improved laws to reduce smog, and as far as the dam goes yeah you build any dam in a bad place and it’s going to break, it’s kind of actually another metaphor for what I’m talking about, which is nuclear is more risky because it’s more dependent on humans being more perfect to Implement / operate it.

      • glukoza@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        As far as the smog goes that was before catalytic converters and improved laws to reduce smog

        Then take into account modern nuclear reactors, as other commenters said. Nuclear is the way to go for safest and cleanest energy of all energy sources we have. Things that are stopping it are coal/oil lobby, nuclear scare and capitalists and politicians scared other countries might make nuclear bomb out of it.

        I’d love to have a nuclear powerplant in my country, we are choking here because of coal and coal lobby just makes things worse by supporting energy sources sold as “renewable clean sources” that need batteries to work on and as a fallback, when there is less sun or wind always go back to coal.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Then take into account modern nuclear reactors, as other commenters said.

          I definitely will, when they’re in production. I haven’t had anyone tell me that they are yet, just on the drawing book. I’m all for salt based small reactors that are a lot safer to deal with.

          • glukoza@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            What ? One poster in comments said they are getting power from reactor that is same model as Chernobyl one with added improvments and nothing bad happened, I don’t get what you mean by “when they’re in production” ?

            Are you arguing that coal is safer than nuclear ?

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              I don’t get what you mean by “when they’re in production” ?

              I was speaking about the next generation of reactors that are on the drawing board today.

              I’m all for salt based small reactors that are a lot safer to deal with.