• LoreleiSankTheShip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Imagine this (not so) hypothetical scenario:

    Yellowstone or another supervolcano erupts and leads to a few years of volcanic winter, where there is much less sunshine. This has historical precedent, it has happened before, and while in and of itself it will impact a lot of people regardless of anything else, wouldn’t you agree it would be better to have at least some nuclear power capacity instead of relying solely on renewables?

    Sure, such a scenario is not probable, but it pays to stay safe in the case of one such event. I would say having most of our power from renewables would be best, having it supported by 10-20% or so nuclear with the possibility of increase in times of need would make our electric grids super resilient to stuff

    • Ooops@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Yeah let me imagine a supervolcano explosion of that scale to effect global weather patterns. What do you think will happen to your reactors? No, they are not indestructable just because they can handle an earthquake of normally expected proportion.

    • Microw@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Nature catastrophes are the top 1 danger to nuclear energy. See Fukushima.

      And the real question here would be a comparison between risk of a nuclear accident event and a renewables-impacting climate event.