Greenpeace has been boycotting oil companies before you were even born. Nuclear isn't green and neither is oil. Don't spread misinformation
And also accepting oil money to fight against nuclear power. They were literally founded to spread the lie that nuclear isn't green.
Hell, you can look it up for yourself, they still take money from the Rockefeller Foundation.
They have never been as blatantly owned by oil money as Friends of the Earth, which was founded by a man who hated nuclear much more than he hated oil company money.
The current Rockefeller Foundation pretends to care about the environment. They even (partially) divested from oil company stocks a couple years ago.
Nuclear is not green, stop spreading misinformation
Seems to be listed, It's just that Oil money has paid for a lot of lies. Spoiler, it's because nuclear is the only true threat to fossil fuels.
LMAO the dude got debunked off his own link
Yes it's listed under Non-renewable energy sources
Just because something is non-renewable does not mean it is non-sustainable, just like how something being renewable does not mean it is sustainable.
Hydro (or tidal barrage) power is an example of a renewable energy source, but it restricts river flow such that life can't exist as it naturally has for eons, like fish swimming up/down river, etc., or restricts the flow of minerals and nutrients that feed various niches of river or inlet biodiversity. Those effects on a local ecosystem can lead to other species collapsing elsewhere, which can impact other species, including humans.
Coal power is an example of a non-renewable resource as it depends on minerals that form at much slower rates than on the sorts of time scales humans use those minerals. Coal also leads to deaths of many humans and other species not only in the mining of resources (mine collapses, tailing pond ruptures, lung diseases, etc.), but also in the burning of the minerals via the release of radiation and other particulates that can impact local communities.
Nuclear is, imo, the best non-renewable source we can exercise for human purposes, so we should still pursue it.
It's still non-renewable and not green, only idiots would purse that when you have better alternatives available
Only an idiot wouldn't persue it when it is one of the safest, most reliable, and least polluting (including renewables) options. Radioactive waste is minimal, and modern reactor designs can reprocess it. It is easy to contain, though we do need a solution for long term storage that doesn't really exist yet, but that's basically just some location to bury it. There is enough material to last us for the foreseeable future while we develop other sources to be able to rely on 100% of the time.
Relatively few accidents have involved fatalities, with roughly 74 casualties being attributed to accidents and half of these were those involved in the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.[6]
Compare that to estimated 7 million killed every year by pollution from burning fossil fuels.
#Nuclear is an expensive, uninsurable, unviable tech kept afloat by usually authoritarian government subsidies that produced waste that will be around for thousands of years.
Nuclear fission is a dead end technology.
Wind, Solar and Battery tech will be in place in a fraction of the time and for less cost.
How many people died in Somalia due to nuclear waste?
None confirmed from any of the reports I could find, but feel free to post credible evidence otherwise.
None confirmed and yet the waste is there dumped in the wild, do the math
Please, just go back to Reddit. You belong there.
Bud, that link specifically lists nuclear energy as being sustainable and green. Did you not understand that, or were you just hoping nobody would actually click on the link?
It doesn't, learn how to read
From the link
The role of non-renewable energy sources in sustainable energy has been controversial. Nuclear power is a low-carbon source whose historic mortality rates are comparable to those of wind and solar, but its sustainability has been debated because of concerns about radioactive waste, nuclear proliferation, and accidents.
They're literally explaining to you why the contraversy even exists, which is oil propaganda.
Nuclear is green. It's emissions are almost zero greenhouse gases and won't contribute to global warming.
You seem to have reading issues. Nuclear is not green
Nuclear energy is the closest thing we've got to green energy that we're going to get for the foreseeable future. Anyone opposing it is an idiot.
Instead of just getting closer to green energy you can use green energy
Greenpeace has been boycotting oil companies before you were even born. Nuclear isn't green and neither is oil. Don't spread misinformation
And also accepting oil money to fight against nuclear power. They were literally founded to spread the lie that nuclear isn't green.
Hell, you can look it up for yourself, they still take money from the Rockefeller Foundation.
They have never been as blatantly owned by oil money as Friends of the Earth, which was founded by a man who hated nuclear much more than he hated oil company money.
The current Rockefeller Foundation pretends to care about the environment. They even (partially) divested from oil company stocks a couple years ago.
Nuclear is not green, stop spreading misinformation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable\_energy#Nuclear\_power
Seems to be listed, It's just that Oil money has paid for a lot of lies. Spoiler, it's because nuclear is the only true threat to fossil fuels.
LMAO the dude got debunked off his own link
Yes it's listed under Non-renewable energy sources
Just because something is non-renewable does not mean it is non-sustainable, just like how something being renewable does not mean it is sustainable.
Hydro (or tidal barrage) power is an example of a renewable energy source, but it restricts river flow such that life can't exist as it naturally has for eons, like fish swimming up/down river, etc., or restricts the flow of minerals and nutrients that feed various niches of river or inlet biodiversity. Those effects on a local ecosystem can lead to other species collapsing elsewhere, which can impact other species, including humans.
Coal power is an example of a non-renewable resource as it depends on minerals that form at much slower rates than on the sorts of time scales humans use those minerals. Coal also leads to deaths of many humans and other species not only in the mining of resources (mine collapses, tailing pond ruptures, lung diseases, etc.), but also in the burning of the minerals via the release of radiation and other particulates that can impact local communities.
Nuclear is, imo, the best non-renewable source we can exercise for human purposes, so we should still pursue it.
It's still non-renewable and not green, only idiots would purse that when you have better alternatives available
Only an idiot wouldn't persue it when it is one of the safest, most reliable, and least polluting (including renewables) options. Radioactive waste is minimal, and modern reactor designs can reprocess it. It is easy to contain, though we do need a solution for long term storage that doesn't really exist yet, but that's basically just some location to bury it. There is enough material to last us for the foreseeable future while we develop other sources to be able to rely on 100% of the time.
It's not the safest by any margin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
It's not the most reliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis_since_late_2021
It's not the least polluting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste_dumping_by_%27Ndrangheta
There are enough alternatives to ditch nuclear already and rely on better sources
From that link...
Compare that to estimated 7 million killed every year by pollution from burning fossil fuels.
https://ourworldindata.org/data-review-air-pollution-deaths
You really trust UNSCEAR ? 😆
@erusuoyera @cloud
#Nuclear is an expensive, uninsurable, unviable tech kept afloat by usually authoritarian government subsidies that produced waste that will be around for thousands of years.
Nuclear fission is a dead end technology.
Wind, Solar and Battery tech will be in place in a fraction of the time and for less cost.
How many people died in Somalia due to nuclear waste?
None confirmed from any of the reports I could find, but feel free to post credible evidence otherwise.
None confirmed and yet the waste is there dumped in the wild, do the math
Please, just go back to Reddit. You belong there.
Bud, that link specifically lists nuclear energy as being sustainable and green. Did you not understand that, or were you just hoping nobody would actually click on the link?
It doesn't, learn how to read
From the link
They're literally explaining to you why the contraversy even exists, which is oil propaganda.
Nuclear is green. It's emissions are almost zero greenhouse gases and won't contribute to global warming.
You seem to have reading issues. Nuclear is not green
Nuclear energy is the closest thing we've got to green energy that we're going to get for the foreseeable future. Anyone opposing it is an idiot.
Instead of just getting closer to green energy you can use green energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_energy
Your own link says that provides 15% of the world's energy. You're one of the idiots.