Solar and wind need to be included otherwise wrong impression possible.
-
-
-
The conclusion in my opinion: Getting rid of coal should be no.1 priority!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
cause it sounds like a great plan for a few hundred years but really bad for hundreds of thousands of years
-
Hundreds of thousands of years? I know we're supposed to care about the future, but that's nuts. Civilization is only 10,000 years old ffs,
-
OK, so a thousand years. There have been some meltdowns already, let's postulate one every 10 years and look out 1,000 - a hundred?
-
@ReverseHitler88's account is temporarily unavailable because it violates the Twitter Media Policy. Learn more
-
oh, MODERN ones! So all those ancient ones are gone? What did we do with them? Push them into the sea? (Sorry, that sounds great.)
-
@ReverseHitler88's account is temporarily unavailable because it violates the Twitter Media Policy. Learn more
-
@ReverseHitler88's account is temporarily unavailable because it violates the Twitter Media Policy. Learn more
-
@ReverseHitler88's account is temporarily unavailable because it violates the Twitter Media Policy. Learn more
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
The lack of quantitative thinking & risk/benefit analysis in these comments is really depressing. Did anyone even read the article?
#sad -
Nuclear is the safest *current* option, for sure. But let's be ready to rethink this over the next 20 years as tech changes the game.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There's a big problem with nuclear, however: an accident lasts a very long time+has significant complications, not all known at the time.
-
You could quite easily substitute 'nuclear' for 'fossil fuels' in the context of climate change.
-
No. In context of climate change, fossil fuels are magnitudes worse than nuclear
-
That was my point. Clearly not well made.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The report is pretty meaningless, based on a 2007 study. Doesn't take Fukushima 2011 into account. Impact from Fukushima still spreading.
-
You could assign all the tsunami deaths to Fukushima, and it changes nothing.
-
You haven't accounted for the more far-reaching effects. Mutations and death of marine life, disruption of global food chain.
-
It's not like a nuclear disaster is a momentary event. Gift keeps on giving.http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-14/locals-resist-plan-dump-radioactive-material-fukushima-ocean …
-
Those doses of tritium are harmless to living beings.
-
Ya, zerohead is not from ocean scientists, I recommend this instead least you be lead by the blind http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=127297 …
-
That accident, might someday take a few human lives. Again, unless it takes _millions_ nuclear power will remain safer per unit power.
-
It would actually need killed tens or hundreds of millions to make up for the relative few accidents to fossil fuels
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.