• hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    5 months ago

    The idiots on here firmly believe that nuclear creates zero waste. In their deranged head there is no nuclear waste that will last for longer than humanity existed.

    • Yaztromo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      All coal from the Earth has a radioactive component to it. Burning coal releases more radiation into the atmosphere than a properly functioning nuclear reactor ever does. Fly ash from coal fired power plants contains 100 times more radiation than nuclear power plants emit.

      The idiots on here apparently also think that burning coal somehow doesn’t create waste that will last for longer than humanity has existed.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Germany could have eliminated coal a decade or more ago. That’s an important point to bring up.

          I agree it’s too late now for nuclear to make sense, but that was a lost decade of coal emissions.

          • hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            It would be of the discussion was nuclear vs coal - which it isn’t.

            You’re bringing up the straw man because you want turn away the discussion from renewables.

            There’s good discussion to be had on the (complex) situation in Germany but it’s immediately flooded by the nuke-bots.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              The discussion may not have been nuclear vs coal, but the reality was. That’s the whole problem.

              • hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                2 x No it isn’t. I know you love your precious precious nuclear to death and back and you really really need to discuss coal to better shill for it. Nobody cares about your religion and your straw man.

                • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  “Nuh uh!”

                  Okay whatever lol. Deny reality all you want. More nuclear = less coal, it’s very simple math. Anyone not blinded by “scary nuclear!” can see it.

                  • hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    Nuclear just means massive potential radioactive pollution as there is no secure storage for the radioactive waste. You are now going to claim there is proven safe storage, there just a couple of mishaps really.

                    Also, more importantly, there isn’t even enough fission material to sustain demand for significant time if Germany and others were to switch. But sure lets’s just skip and ignore renewables. Renewables pollute so much.