Based on safety and carbon emissions, fossil fuels are the dirtiest and most dangerous, while nuclear and modern renewable energy sources are vastly safer and cleaner.

I found this surprising. Even considering the costs of construction and decommissioning, nuclear does not compare too badly to renewables.

This doesn’t seem to be just made up. It cites this which cites this, which cites this. And as far as i’m willing to dig, there’s nothing bogus about it.

I have a few comments though:

  • in the Warner article, do the costs represent proper decommissioning, like making it as safe as a decommissioned solar farm would be? It’s not clear.
  • The OWID article doesn’t distinguish between different types of wind/solar, which the source material does! So maybe that’s how they are fudging the data? Somebody needs to take some time and improve the OWID dataset.
  • It’s really pathetic if renewables still aren’t safer and cheaper than nuclear. Nuclear is so wasteful. If we need a decade or two of research before we can ditch nuclear, then let’s do it.
  • EduMerco@lemmy.ml
    1·
    3 years ago

    I found strange how costs and deaths for nuclear were counted. For example, the cost of lost lands due to radioactive contamination for many years, abandoned cities, suffering and life impacting cancer or other illnesses in survivors is not included. Only direct deaths are included.

    Also, transgenerational tyranny is not included in that comparison.

    Do we have the right to leave future generations with our radioactiva waste? Personally, I don’t think so, specially since we are comparing a non renewable and concentrated (and so, with incredible upfront costs that force us to keep them for many years and render conditions to those that have that capital) source of energy versus a distributed, renewable and quickly evolving one…

    Just some thoughts to spark a healthy and respectful discussion. :)

    Best…