this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
57 points (89.0% liked)

World News

38724 readers
2297 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/13941188

The paper is here

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 0 points 6 hours ago (4 children)

Unfortunately everything has byproducts and emissions that we do. The only real solution is to reduce, which is difficult given the population and so many third world nations wanting to join a higher standard of living. Natural gas is probably better than coal overall, but on the scale of bad for the environment where 10 is the worst, is an 8 or 9 better? Technically, yes.

[–] basmatii@lemm.ee -2 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

Then nuclear is your option, not the option that permanently destroys water tables for billions.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 1 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

I believe the biggest source of emissions for nuclear actually come from the construction phase, so getting past that, maybe. Still would be preferable to also reduce energy use so that the "better" source can be spread more efficiently.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I believe the biggest source of emissions for nuclear actually come from the construction phase,

While construction would be huge for emissions, I would guess the most emissions would come from the mining, transport, refinement, and disposal efforts for the fuel on an ongoing basis.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 1 points 13 minutes ago

There's emissions for any activity, but the nuclear fuel cycle seems pretty spread out to suggest it's anything comparable to what the fossil fuel chain of fueling is like.