• Rakonat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hydropower is about as bad for most ecosystems as burning fossil fuels. And its definitely not something that can be done quick or cheaply.

    • Nobsi@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Whats the source on it being about as bad?
      It releases methane, yes.
      We don’t have to do hydro. Wind and the Sun are already plenty enough.

        • Nobsi@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thank you for the paper.
          This does indeed clarify exact numbers that i didnt have.

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

        https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

        Nuclear produces the least emissions over it’s life cycle and has a safety rating that flip flops with solar depending on how they want to classify accidents in construction and preparation.

        If you want a sustainable, clean and reliable future, your power grid needs Wind, Solar and Nuclear. There is absolutely no reason to exclude Nuclear Power from any green energy plan.

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

            I hear a lot of people trash talking OWID but never see anyone disputing the data or otherwise proving it’s wrong. And the information it presents on a whole lines up with other information provided by other research, surveys and data points.

      • Rakonat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just building and completing a damn is worse for the environment and local ecosystems than a category seven catastrophic nuclear accident.

        • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You’re getting downvoted, but there’s some truth in it. You don’t just build a dam, you flood thousands of square miles and destroy hundreds of microcosms. Species have gone extinct due to dams. Not to mention that you can literally never remove them, because stupid humans build cities at their feet.

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

            Ive come to find on reddit and lemmu that people don’t actually understand anything about nuclear energy, citing how bad Chernobyl is yet ignoring that not only is there still life in the exclusion zone, new species have emerged and been identified, where as successful dams that didn’t have any failures irrevocably damage and destroyed ecosystem upstream and downstream.

            • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Not to mention that in the hundred years of nuclear plants, 30 people have died in TOTAL. Coal mines have killed a hundred thousand in the US alone, and windmills kill a few thousand in the UK alone each year. Nuclear has only killed 30 people. In a hundred years. Fukishima didn’t hurt a single person.