• marcos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Try price/year instead of lifespan.

    But yeah, you can go with crud oil usage, birds killed and acres of habitat destroyed too. Those won’t give you the result you are wanting to see.

    It’s not that nuclear is useless. But it’s worse on almost every way. Yeah, that “almost” is important, but the meme is way out of line.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not useless, and it’s most certainly not worse in almost all ways - enriching the fuel and construction time/costs are all that make it fall apart.

      Nuclear can be built near pretty much any water source without tainting it at all, it generates a huge amount of power with very little land usage, it lasts for a long time.

      If we had time, I’d be all in on nuclear - but it takes almost a decade of build time… We need solutions a hell of a lot faster than that or we’re all screwed anyways