• Specal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Chernobyl was a worst case scenario. It has affected millions of people and will have an unknown death toll due to the inability to measure it.

    It’s still less harmful than any non renewal able energy source.

    Nuclear is a safe, intermediate bandaid while we find a long term solution.

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This was true a decade ago but since then renewables have plummeted in price. Solar is 5x cheaper than it was a decade ago. Nuclear, meanwhile, has gone up in price by 50%.

      • Specal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A baseline power source is required, until battery tech catches up, or we build a fuckload of dams, something needs to fill the gap.

          • Specal@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Where are you going to get all the materials for global energy battery storage boss man?

            We’re not talking about storing a couple Kw here and there for each household, there is also industry energy requirements.

            Once we start producing batteries for the kind of storage the price of lithium will skyrocket, and you’re in the same, maybe even worse boat of nuclear.

            Honestly your best bet is both, idk why you’re so scared of nuclear. If one of these battery storage centres goes up in flames, the amount of toxins released would be disastrous for anyone nearby. And lithium doesn’t really stop once the reaction starts.

            There are other battery technologies in the works, which would be environmentally more sound, and be far far cheaper. But it’s not ready yet.