• Umbra@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lol. Well how many people would die if we stopped using fossil fuels? In the end we’ll have to rely on technology to fix this.

      • killa44@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We have the technology. Nuclear power can save the planet.

        There is no will to put in the work.

        • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unfortunately, it’s too late to change people’s minds now that they’ve grown up thinking nuclear power is the devil.

          “It’s easier to fool a man than to convince him he’s been fooled.”

          • cyberpunk007@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            How do we make it safe with the rise of natural disasters? Nuclear meltdowns are bad for us and the environment.

            I’m really looking forward to advancements in nuclear fusion.

            • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Fusion could still take decades, or maybe never happen at all. Modern fission reactor designs are already more than safe enough. We can’t afford to wait any longer.

              • cyberpunk007@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re right. But I don’t get how people can’t see the risk. No matter how many controls you put in place, how safe you make it, there’s always a chance. And if that happens, we face a nuclear meltdown which will make the place and nearby locations uninhabitable for hundreds of years. I don’t know if controls even exist to prevent a meltdown caused by an earthquake or tornado/hurricane.

                • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What is preferrable: a tiny chance to make a small area (Chernobyl-size is impossible with modern reactors) uninhabitable or a guarantee to make the entire planet uninhabitable?

            • killa44@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Fusion is perhaps better, but not ready. We’re out of time, and doing nothing new guarantees death for all.

              Modern nuclear reactors, especially ones not trying to turn a profit, and be made extremely safe in almost any environment. Investment in solar and wind is good too, but they can’t handle the current loads needed to keep things working.

              Even something as simple as requiring all new construction be outfitted with solar panels would be a step forward, but politics and money will be the death of us all. Literally.

        • Umbra@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m all for nuclear power. What I meant more is about removing the excess greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere.