The 7 reasons why nuclear energy is not the answer to solve climate change | Heinrich Böll Stiftung | Brussels office - European Union
eu.boell.org
New nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh. Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated. In addition, it creates risk and cost associated with weapons proliferation, meltdown, mining lung cancer, and waste risks. Clean, renewables avoid all such risks.

This is a (slightly older) article about Nuclear Energy and climate change. It’s a hottly debated topic in climate communities, so I thought some of you would enjoy to read it.

Another article that brings up some more points against nuclear power can be found here.

I’d be interested what you ppl think of the matter.

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    1·
    1 year ago

    I absolutely read the article. However it does a sleight of hand that you either agree with or fell for. It doesn’t compare uranium mining to other mining activities, it compares uranium mining to smoking. Radon gas is a naturally occurring gas from granite, not uranium ore per se, though I’d forgive you if you thought Radon had something to do with uranium specifically, that is what the article implies. Yes Radon gas exists when you mine uranium but it also exist when you mine cobalt, coal, gold, or salt.