You're viewing a single thread.
-
The problem isn't that they exploded one time. The problem is that that one explosion is still happening and likely will be for quite a while.
On the other hand, modern rock exploding plant designs are so much better that it's very unlikely to repeat itself, so there's that.
-
I'm sure the other rock/liquid/gas burning plants have had no issues along their lifetime and had no hand in demonizing the "new" slowly exploding rock technology after extreme negligence let the one big one happen. /s
I'd take the band aid of nuclear in my backyard vs what we rely on now after learning all of the insider knowledge of someone who personally worked in energy generation that did all of this plus renewables almost their entire professional life.
-
A hydro damn breaking has killed more people than Chernobyl before, and probably will again. Renewables are not perfect either unfortunately. Though some are slightly safer than nuclear.
-
Most are safer than nuclear, but until the environmental cost of manufacturing them is outweighed by the benefit of their use then nuclear is the least intolerable stopgap.
-
Wait are you saying that renewables have too much environmental cost to make?
-
Some do. Hydro is a net positive, not sure about wind but probably, but last I heard solar not so much. That may have changed since.
-
I know manufacturing panels and batteries have a significant environmental cost. Being a net negative though I am not sure about. Could you link some sources?
-
-
-
-
Nobody wants dams. It's not just dangerous, It's also ecocide.
-
Since when? There are dams all over the place.
-
-
-