• selokichtli@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

    It’s weird. In general, in the greentext community I just reply something stupid and move on. You guys are commenting what seems serious, at the same time there are a lot of people commenting about how we should have gone nuclear, etc. Now, I don’t know if you’re being serious or you are trolling as I would with a less apocalyptic topic.

    There, feels like I made it.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Nuclear isn’t apocalyptic, if that’s what you’re saying. It’s caused far less harm than almost every other energy source (the only exception is large scale photovoltaic), including nuclear disasters, which we’ve learned a lot on how to prevent so will only become less common. They’re already extraordinarily uncommon. Storage is also a solved problem and just needs implemented, and is pretty minor as is.

      The apocalyptic option is to let dirty energy win the battle. They’ve been pumping tons of money into anti-nuclear movements to convince people it’s dangerous. It isn’t though. That’s just what traditional energy companies want you to believe to protect their share of the market.

      • Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        One caveat on prevention making accidents less common: cost-cutting gets in the way. It’s a tale as old as time; a regulation is written in blood, a company disregards or lobbies to have the regulation removed in favour of cutting costs, and then the accident happens again.