• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    02 years ago

    I can’t wait until we finally decommission all these CO2-spewing nuclear reactors. Maybe we can then start to repair climate change!

    • CarrotsHaveEars
      link
      fedilink
      02 years ago

      I don’t think nuclear reactors spew CO2. Why would they and where does the carbon come from?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        I think the biggest problem is all the concrete that goes into building them.

        Then there’s the concrete needed for nuclear waste dumps. You have to consider the whole life-cycle of the plant before comparing.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          02 years ago

          Exactly. The concrete for just one nuclear reactor could build apartment buildings for 192 quadrillion humans (not that there are so many). We’re talking teratons of carbon dioxide, per plant. It’s just too much. I mean, I don’t like the coal plants that we’re using during the transition to true renewable energy, but that’s only the tiniest fraction of carbon dioxide that is produced during the construction of a single nuclear plant.

          Thankfully, solar and wind don’t use concrete at all. Those installations are anchored into the ground with unicorn farts and pixie dust, making them environmentally friendly and safe for humanity. Say no to big concrete.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            0
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Following the discussion in the other comments, I did some research.

            People usually cite this, which cites this which cites this, which cites this.

            You can see there that plant construction and decommissioning are both counted, and that the comparison for nuclear versus renewables is very good.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -12 years ago

              Nuclear is dangerous. There is no getting around this. It’s dangerous in many more ways than coal or oil, it’s more dangerous than anything. It is a constant, ongoing natural disaster. No one who calls themselves an environmentalist could possibly downplay the catastrophe that is nuclear.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                12 years ago

                In what sense is it more dangerous than coal, if not in terms of human or animal deaths, or environmental damage? It’s more dangerous by what measure?