• Track_ShovelOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    13
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    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.

    • @deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      513 hours ago

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

      • andrew_bidlaw
        link
        fedilink
        English
        155 minutes 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.

      • @PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        511 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.

      • Track_ShovelOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        311 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.