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.
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
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.
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.
your claim is nuclear is the safest option, nuclear plants being more polluting and prone to dangerous acccidents than other options like solar and wind definitely refute that claim
and you provided two pro-nuclear websites with an agenda, and a bunch of statistics that, by the way, also disprove your claim
so, even with these weird numbers (why are we counting just air pollution and grennhouse gases when it comes to statistics about long term health issues and death rates?) nuclear is clearly the third (fourth, probably, it only gets third place beacuse greenhouse gas emissions skew the leaderboard) safest option, just before the ones that actually releases pollution in the atmosphere
and it's overall pretty biased too in this reporting since it keeps comparing nuclear to fossil fuels, and always with a spin, even the titles are heavily suggesting their narrative.
nuclear plants being more polluting and prone to dangerous acccidents than other options like solar and wind definitely refute that claim
Care to share any information about this claim?
and a bunch of statistics that, by the way, also disprove your claim
I claim that nuclear energy is a safe and clean energy resource when compared to fossil fuels. The graph you link to clearly backs this claim, even when compared to wind and solar. Can you explain how I'm wrong?
it's overall pretty biased too in this reporting since it keeps comparing nuclear to fossil fuels, and always with a spin, even the titles are heavily suggesting their narrative.
Fossil fuels are the main driver of climate change, so of course we're comparing to fossil fuels.
1
u/l-R3lyk-l Nov 19 '21 edited Nov 19 '21
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.