The clean-up operation is expected to take decades, with the most dangerous part — removing radioactive fuel and rubble from three stricken reactors — yet to begin.
Nothing to see here, people. We have everything under control. Like, we totally know what we’re doing.
The Three Gorges dam displaced an approximate 1.3 million people, is of questionable structural integrity because of rushed construction, has had a huge impact on its immediate environment and in the event of a breach endangers 400 million people. While that monstrosity is an outlier, in most instances the construction of a dam will displace a lot of people and carries a sizable risk of breach if the construction isn’t carried out properly. Should or shouldn’t hydroelectric be considered environmentally friendly?
Wind and solar have relatively short material lifespans that are expensive or impossible to recycle. It’s all a double edged sword. There is no single solution that will work everywhere on this planet.
Sorry if I was vague, I meant the person you were replying to doesn’t know what nuclear power is, which is why they use a fear mongering term like “nukes” to describe nuclear power.
Nobody knows how long they’re going to take because they still don’t have a fucking clue about how they’re going to do it. I’m not blaming the people working on this stuff, my point is that this technology is still uncontrollable despite what all the apologists keep trying to tell us.
Nothing to see here, people. We have everything under control. Like, we totally know what we’re doing.
Still safer than fossil fuels.
Tell that to the tens of thousands of people that were displaced. And the alternative to nukes is obviously not fossil fuels but renewable energy.
The Three Gorges dam displaced an approximate 1.3 million people, is of questionable structural integrity because of rushed construction, has had a huge impact on its immediate environment and in the event of a breach endangers 400 million people. While that monstrosity is an outlier, in most instances the construction of a dam will displace a lot of people and carries a sizable risk of breach if the construction isn’t carried out properly. Should or shouldn’t hydroelectric be considered environmentally friendly?
Hydro is the 70s idea of green.
See how people usually only talk about wind/solar rather than suggest building more dams?
If anything places are starting to dismantle dams to restore ecosystems.
Wind and solar have relatively short material lifespans that are expensive or impossible to recycle. It’s all a double edged sword. There is no single solution that will work everywhere on this planet.
Nukes? I’m sorry, but what?
Nuclear power as seen by someone who has no idea what nuclear power is.
I know what nuclear power is, I’m just confused as to why someone would use the word nukes, which is clearly associated with the ammunitions.
Nuclear power has its place in the energy generation system alongside natural energy sources.
Sorry if I was vague, I meant the person you were replying to doesn’t know what nuclear power is, which is why they use a fear mongering term like “nukes” to describe nuclear power.
Ah, gotcha!
Your house is on fire, but the good news is I just saved a lot of money on my car insurance.
The lesser of 2 evils is not a compelling argument for energy consumption when the Earth is dying.
This is a piss poor take.
Yeah, you’re right. It’s not that they’re trying to be careful and prevent more damage, it’s going to take that long because they’re stupid. /s
Nobody knows how long they’re going to take because they still don’t have a fucking clue about how they’re going to do it. I’m not blaming the people working on this stuff, my point is that this technology is still uncontrollable despite what all the apologists keep trying to tell us.