Some key points:

  • nuclear causes fewer deaths, both animal and human alike
  • nuclear takes up far less space, and therefore destroys far less of the environment compared to solar farms, hydro, or wind farms
  • nuclear is stable and not an intermittent source, no issues with grid storage, unlike renewables, which currently solve this with fossil peaker plants
  • nuclear is hard to turn off so to meet fluctuating demand solely on it, you’d need an excess of nuclear, which is a waste
  • nuclear excess could encourage other use of electricity, such as electric heating or transport, however
  • nuclear when it does go bad, goes really bad, mostly in that a large area has to be abandoned for a long long time (historically still fewer deaths than renewables per unit of energy produced tho)
  • nuclear can cause the proliferation of nuclear weapons
  • nuclear is a lot harder to spin up, requires extensive education and is hard and takes a long time to build a plant, compared to renewables
  • all that nuclear waste and no plan other than shove it in somewhere, in a mountain, and keep it secret, keep it safe.

Yay or Nay?

What say you?

  • exohuman@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am a fan of renewables first and nuclear second. I am not against nuclear but if society collapses into war or chaos the nuclear plant will be a disaster. This is currently happening in Ukraine. Russia is attacking nuclear power stations and turning off radiation monitoring. Also, we need to store waste on the moon or something. Why pollute earth with that stuff?

    No inhumane disasters happen from renewable energy so my vote is for that.