this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
668 points (69.6% liked)

Memes

51826 readers
1462 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 5) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NessD@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, it's not the best we have. Solar and wind are way safer, cost less and don't produce waste.

Sure, nuclear power is safe until it isn't. Fukushima and Chernobyl are examples of that. Nuclear plants in Ukraine were at risk during Russian attacks. Even if you have a modern plant, you don't really think that under capitalism there is an incentive to care properly for them in the long run. Corners will be cut.

Besides that they produce so much waste that has to be: a) being transported b) stored somewhere

Looking at the US railroad system and how it is pushed beyond it's capacity right now and seeing how nuclear waste sites are literally rotting and contaminating everything around them I'd say it's one of the least safe energies. Especially if you have clean alternatives that don't produce waste.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wasabi@feddit.org 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Nuclear waste is still an unsolved problem that absolutely no one wants to touch with a ten foot pole. Also nuclear power is a pretty expensive method of power generation and can't be insured, leaving all risk of disaster on the shoulders of society. To be clear: society will be pretty fucked when a nuclear disaster happens anyway.

It's a lot better than coal, though.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] words_number@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's unsafe, not renewable, not independent from natural resources (which might not be present in your country, so you need to buy from dictators) and last but not least crazy expensive.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›