Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ATribeOfAfricans t1_j35omub wrote

Such a weird assertion. Wind is practically harmless and exists in harvestable quantities far beyond anything humans will need for a very long time.


TX_Rangrs t1_j35r58e wrote

>Wind is practically harmless

more people have died from windmills than nuclear plants


StateRadioFan t1_j37cvrb wrote

How many people/animals have developed cancer due to radiation poisoning from windmills? How many acres of land have been deemed uninhabitable from windmills farms? How many windmill farms are leaking radioactive materials into our rivers?

I’m so tired of shills white washing the hazards of nuclear and pushing it as a clean energy.


TX_Rangrs t1_j37kxgu wrote

Wind is great and should be deployed as much as possible in as many places as possible. It's much cheaper than nuclear power in areas with consistent wind and can be built much faster.

The issue, is we can't build enough windmills to solve the climate crisis on its own (not without massive battery storage, which despite curated anecdotes, is still prohibitively expensive at utility scale).

You need reliable, dispatchable, baseload to complement intermittent wind and solar. For that, we need nuclear to take the place currently held by coal and natural gas. That's the most direct path to actually achieving climate targets.


ATribeOfAfricans t1_j38yj42 wrote

You can build a shitload of nuclear plants to baseload off of or you can invest in energy storage technology and projects which are much better long term solutions.

Do agree nuclear is a good technology but really don't trust humanity to run and store the use fuel responsibily for a thousand years from what I've seen happen in the past 100


eastandwestagain t1_j35q76h wrote

It requires resources to build, perhaps those that could be better allocated to nuclear. That was the absolutism but you're right, it was unnecessary.