@epilepticrabbit @dajbelshaw A lot of negativity around nuclear comes from propaganda from the fossil fuel industry. (Obvious disasters were avoidable, and three in 60 years is a fraction of fossil fuel industry disasters). I have no doubt that nuclear has to play role until renewable tech is scaled up. The risk of including too much nuclear is “ah sure, do we really need renewables at all, at all?” creeping in. We need renewables.

Follow

@dajbelshaw @epilepticrabbit In terms of direct loss of life, they’re nowhere close. It’s one of those techs that *can* be done better, for sure, but fossil fuel burning has pretty much peaked in terms of how clean it can get. I think the lack of carbon emissions from nuclear is by itself a compelling reason to include it in the mix (unless energy consumption drops through the floor, which ain’t going to happen).

@dajbelshaw @epilepticrabbit (Just to clarify the “nowhere close” comment, direct loss of life from fossil fuel disasters far exceeds direct loss of life from nuclear, in case it came across the other way around!).

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Scholar Social

Scholar Social is a microblogging platform for researchers, grad students, librarians, archivists, undergrads, academically inclined high schoolers, educators of all levels, journal editors, research assistants, professors, administrators—anyone involved in academia who is willing to engage with others respectfully.