• roastpotatothief
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    Following the discussion in the other comments, I did some research.

    People usually cite this, which cites this which cites this, which cites this.

    You can see there that plant construction and decommissioning are both counted, and that the comparison for nuclear versus renewables is very good.

    • DPUGT2
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 years ago

      Nuclear is dangerous. There is no getting around this. It’s dangerous in many more ways than coal or oil, it’s more dangerous than anything. It is a constant, ongoing natural disaster. No one who calls themselves an environmentalist could possibly downplay the catastrophe that is nuclear.

      • roastpotatothief
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        In what sense is it more dangerous than coal, if not in terms of human or animal deaths, or environmental damage? It’s more dangerous by what measure?