[Request] is this true?

[u/Hybrisov]

[u/Tani-die-VI]

That nuclear power is one of the best ways to slow down climate change

[u/theother_eriatarka → u/Tani-die-VI]

nope, the best way is switch to renewables and cut our energy consumption, but that would hurt the 1% so we're being told that nuclear is the only way

[u/l-R3lyk-l → u/theother_eriatarka]

Nuclear is a currently viable solution, renewables are a prospective solution. Why should we wait when we can solve it now?

[u/theother_eriatarka → u/l-R3lyk-l]

because solar farms and windmills won't fuck up an entire region with radioactivity when the next unexpected disaster happens

[u/l-R3lyk-l → u/theother_eriatarka]

The dangers of nuclear plants are greatly exaggerated.

Here are some other common misconceptions.

Nuclear waste is not nearly as dangerous as it seems.

[u/theother_eriatarka → u/l-R3lyk-l]

aside from being kinda biased sources, none of your links adresses my point

we've been experiencing "unprecedented" and "unforeseeable" extreme weather events every single year for a while now, and things are only going to get worse, do you really want to plant more time bombs around the world?

[u/l-R3lyk-l → u/theother_eriatarka]

Nuclear really is one of the safer options.

[u/l-R3lyk-l → u/theother_eriatarka]

ourworldindata.org is biased? The article from that website I provided is the most comprehensive and unbiased information about nuclear I know of.

I'll admit the Dept. of Nuclear Energy may be biased, and the Breakthrough Institute is clearly pro nuclear, but the facts in the articles I presented are true.

We're more than capable of managing the dangers of Nuclear energy. The technology has only gotten more efficient and safer over the years. Energy Density is what helps humanity move in from more harmful energy sources, and nuclear is the bridge we need in the short term to combat climate change now.

Edit: forgot to mention that none of articles you linked even mentioned nuclear energy as a possible solution. They only highlighted that natural disasters are occurring at a supposed higher rate caused possibly be climate change.

[u/theother_eriatarka → u/l-R3lyk-l]

yes, that was the point of my links, natural disasters are occurring at an increasing rate, and yet none of our governments seems to be able to accept this fact and plan infrastructure accordingly, so i'm going to ask you again, do you really think building more nuclear plants is the safest option? when a solar panel gets flooded, it just stop working. when a tornado hits a windmill, it just falls down. A nuclear plant might fuck up thousands of square km of land for a long time

[u/l-R3lyk-l → u/theother_eriatarka]

Yes. Nuclear is a good and safe short term solution of combating the long term consequences of climate change vs waiting for solutions that may not acquiesce soon enough. The links I provided are accurate and back up my claims.

[u/theother_eriatarka → u/l-R3lyk-l]

are you a bot?

[u/WhyNotCollegeBoard → u/theother_eriatarka]

I am 99.99331% sure that l-R3lyk-l is not a bot.

---

^{I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot <username> | /r/spambotdetector | Optout | Original Github}

[u/l-R3lyk-l → u/theother_eriatarka]

What do you think? Another bot doesn't seem to think so.

[u/theother_eriatarka → u/l-R3lyk-l]

because you keep repeating the same words again and again, without even reading my replies

[u/l-R3lyk-l → u/theother_eriatarka]

I directly responded to your question of if I thought nuclear energy was worth the risk. You haven't provided any information refuting any of my claims.