• Track_Shovel@slrpnk.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    What if we constantly subsidized industries that made our climate unlivable?

    Nuclear is a sound option. We already deal with mining wastes that must be managed in perpetuity. Nuclear waste isn’t much different in that regard.

    Your point about landscapes also happens in mining.

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Yes, we should be moving to solar instead of propping up uneconomic polluting industries like nuclear or coal.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Doing something because it’s the “most economical” is why we have a climate catastrophe on our hands. Plus solar can’t actually provide steady power on it’s own and never will be able to. Exotic nation wide energy storage solutions do not exists at our current level of technology. Instead solar/wind has to be offset by natural gas power plants.

      • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I fully support solar and wind but I don’t think it’s a one size fits all at this point. I think solar needs to get a lot more efficient and better to cover all the applications that oil and gas and coal do.

        Even renewables need mining (sadly) which has significant impacts.