this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
392 points (93.4% liked)

> Greentext

7541 readers
618 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

What if we constantly subsidized industries that made our climate unlivable?

Nuclear is a sound option. We already deal with mining wastes that must be managed in perpetuity. Nuclear waste isn't much different in that regard.

Your point about landscapes also happens in mining.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

Yes, we should be moving to solar instead of propping up uneconomic polluting industries like nuclear or coal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago

Nuclear rarely ever perceived as a polluter in such discussions because there's not much waste compared to nearly everything else. The major problem is with its' very slow and expensive roll out and how gas\coal industries hate the guts of a technology that's proven effective - so Germany famously rolled their nuclear programs back and got dependent on russian gas, thanks Schröeder (now works in russian oil companies, kek), Merkel and so-called greens.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 16 hours ago

Doing something because it's the "most economical" is why we have a climate catastrophe on our hands. Plus solar can't actually provide steady power on it's own and never will be able to. Exotic nation wide energy storage solutions do not exists at our current level of technology. Instead solar/wind has to be offset by natural gas power plants.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 16 hours ago

I fully support solar and wind but I don't think it's a one size fits all at this point. I think solar needs to get a lot more efficient and better to cover all the applications that oil and gas and coal do.

Even renewables need mining (sadly) which has significant impacts.