lemm.ee

2 points

1 year ago

They do by opposing nuclear. Good examples in Germany and in my home country Finland. Solar/wind cant replace nuclear by themselves. The old gen activists didnt really have the capacity to think that far with scientific mind nut unfortunately with emotion.

report

[ - ]

cloud@lazysoci.al

2 points

1 year ago

Sounds like you are the one thinking by emotion. Climate activists do not advocate for coal or oil and they don’t run germany or finland.

report

[ - ]

2 points

1 year ago

They did run germanys nuclear down. That increases the usage of coal. In finland the activists have opposed nuclear as well which has droven usage of coal up. This is one of the big reasons the green party lost the election so colossally here few months ago. Im driven by science and facts provided by science. Anybody opposing nuclear doesnt know/understand enough about the subject and is droven by emotion.

report

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_'Ndrangheta

[ - ]

cloud@lazysoci.al

-2 points

1 year ago

The increase of coal did not happen because of activists promoting green energy, it actually happened because your government (the really same that should be in charge for nuclear) doesn’t give a shit and push for coal anyway.

Anybody opposing nuclear doesn’t know/understand enough about the subject and is droven by emotion.

Seem the other way around to me, anyone with the slightest awareness and not driven by personal interests can easy understand the issues of nuclear and the advantage of green energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Incidents

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

You do realize that your links just prove the nuclear energys safety? There have been few tens of incidents over the years and every single one is documented with care and overall the amount of casualities is miniscule. We’ve had more people dying from hydro by itself.

Nuclear is greener energy than many of the other alternatives. It doesnt take much space in the nature and produces miniscule amount of waste that is easily stored and by nature will cease to exist in it’s radiant form over the years.

Nuclear is part of green energy movement and the most important piece of it. By this date no other form of green energy is capable of replacing nuclear. Not an opinion but a fact. It just really seems people still opposing nuclear dont understand how it produces energy, how strict the safety measurements are and how little waste it produces.

report

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilaria_Alpi

[ - ]

cloud@lazysoci.al

0 points

1 year ago

There have been few tens of incidents over the years and every single one is documented with care

Yes the one from the first link is so much documented that journalists documenting it got murdered

Nuclear being “greener” than coal does not mean that it is green.

Having enough iodide pills for everyone and plans for a nuclear disaster do not make nuclear safe.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

Nuclear is greener than hydro and has caused less casualties than hydro. That should be well enough indicator of nuclears greeness to the common folk.

Yeah, sure. People murder people. We still have religion around alltough thats well documented of killing people daily and raping children.

You are really overplaying anything negative thats even loosely linked on nuclear. Modern well managed nuclear is the most environmentally friendly source of energy. It takes so little space, produces so little easily managed waste and enormous amounts of energy. With all the facts and statistics its a no brainer.

report