this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
393 points (93.6% liked)

> Greentext

7541 readers
619 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 hour 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.