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.
  • roastpotatothief@lemmy.mlOP
    2·
    3 years ago

    Here is the discussion that made me make this post. You’ll find more detail there.

    it only cherry picks some elements

    What impresses me about this report is that it does have citations, and you can look at the research. Follow the links. I couldn’t find any flaws. That’s what’s so surprising about it.

    What specifically is cherry picked or misrepresented?

    If there are no mistakes in the research and the conclusions are valid, we should start taking nuclear seriously from now on.