• cloud@lazysoci.al
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The ones supporting coal over anything are probably big ass energy companies your government and billionares have ties with. Climate activists do not advocate for coal

    • 3L54@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They do by opposing nuclear. Good examples in Germany and in my home country Finland. Solar/wind cant replace nuclear by themselves. The old gen activists didnt really have the capacity to think that far with scientific mind nut unfortunately with emotion.

      • cloud@lazysoci.al
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sounds like you are the one thinking by emotion. Climate activists do not advocate for coal or oil and they don’t run germany or finland.

        • 3L54@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They did run germanys nuclear down. That increases the usage of coal. In finland the activists have opposed nuclear as well which has droven usage of coal up. This is one of the big reasons the green party lost the election so colossally here few months ago. Im driven by science and facts provided by science. Anybody opposing nuclear doesnt know/understand enough about the subject and is droven by emotion.

          • cloud@lazysoci.al
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The increase of coal did not happen because of activists promoting green energy, it actually happened because your government (the really same that should be in charge for nuclear) doesn’t give a shit and push for coal anyway.

            Anybody opposing nuclear doesn’t know/understand enough about the subject and is droven by emotion.

            Seem the other way around to me, anyone with the slightest awareness and not driven by personal interests can easy understand the issues of nuclear and the advantage of green energy.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_'Ndrangheta

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Incidents

            • 3L54@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You do realize that your links just prove the nuclear energys safety? There have been few tens of incidents over the years and every single one is documented with care and overall the amount of casualities is miniscule. We’ve had more people dying from hydro by itself.

              Nuclear is greener energy than many of the other alternatives. It doesnt take much space in the nature and produces miniscule amount of waste that is easily stored and by nature will cease to exist in it’s radiant form over the years.

              Nuclear is part of green energy movement and the most important piece of it. By this date no other form of green energy is capable of replacing nuclear. Not an opinion but a fact. It just really seems people still opposing nuclear dont understand how it produces energy, how strict the safety measurements are and how little waste it produces.

              • cloud@lazysoci.al
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                There have been few tens of incidents over the years and every single one is documented with care

                Yes the one from the first link is so much documented that journalists documenting it got murdered

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilaria_Alpi

                Nuclear being “greener” than coal does not mean that it is green.

                Having enough iodide pills for everyone and plans for a nuclear disaster do not make nuclear safe.

                • 3L54@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Nuclear is greener than hydro and has caused less casualties than hydro. That should be well enough indicator of nuclears greeness to the common folk.

                  Yeah, sure. People murder people. We still have religion around alltough thats well documented of killing people daily and raping children.

                  You are really overplaying anything negative thats even loosely linked on nuclear. Modern well managed nuclear is the most environmentally friendly source of energy. It takes so little space, produces so little easily managed waste and enormous amounts of energy. With all the facts and statistics its a no brainer.

                  • cloud@lazysoci.al
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    So little manged waste that the mafia can easily ship it to somalia and dump it in the wild.

                    Modern well managed nuclear is the most environmentally friendly source of energy.

                    This is proven wrong by the second link posted earlier.