• Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wind and solar > nuclear > fossil fuels

    Nothing really against nuclear except how it is being weilded as a distraction from better, cleaner, energy. We need to be going all in on converting everything to wind and solar, with batteries and other power storage like water pumping facilities filling the gaps.

    Nuclear needs a few more issues figured out, like how to actually cheaply build and get power from all those touted newer cleaner reactor styles.

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s more toxic waste from solar panels each year than nuclear waste from all nuclear history. And this solar waste keeps snowballing at an insane rate. Because right now we’re dealing with waste from 20-30 years ago, when the amount of deployed solar panels was low. 20-30 years from now there will be no place to bury all that shit.

    • grayman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sorry to burst your bubble on wind and solar… The amount of fiberglass and resin waste of astounding. The concrete trashes that particular spot for many hundreds of years. There are piles of birds in many areas with wind. And then solar… Oof… Most of the chemicals come from China. The slave labor, child labor, and toxic waste at the mines and refineries is just mind boggling. There’s a huge amount of work to do before wind and solar can be good options for humanity and the environment.

      Nuclear has made great strides. We just don’t see those advances in the US unless you’re on a modern nuclear ship in the engine room. Europe has amazing modern designs. So does japan.

      • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A lot of what you just said is not true, fully bullshit, so I’ll just ignore all that. Dead birds? Cmon. Are we going to tear down all the skyscrapers in the world because birds run into them? Are we going to stop the entire logging industry because it takes away bird’s nesting space? Don’t spout anti-green energy propaganda like you are worried about the birds, if you were really worried about them, you would be pro green energy

        If you consider the peripheral waste involved in their production it is only fair to do the same for everything else, and when you do, solar and wind still win. And it’s only going to get better, we are refining and recycling the rare materials involved better and better every year. We are kindof in the golden age of solar power improvements.

        • mayo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think any of us should be making assumptions about how many birds/bats are being killed without looking up the numbers. At least back when I was in school and learning about windmills (a decade ago) there were concerns because wind farms were often located along migratory pathways for birds. And it’s not just ‘birds’ that die, it can be an important species within the trophic level that gets decimated, and then there are consequences of that felt within the food web. It’s not as bad as a city, but we’re talking about introducing something new into the environment, and people should talk about the potential issues. We should be able to have both sides arguments about this stuff, since we’re still likely to agree it’s the right choice to replace carbon plants.

          If you were an ecologist it wouldn’t be so easy to claim others are ignorant when they bring up concerns about renewable energy harming the natural spaces they are introduced into.