• basmatii@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    Then nuclear is your option, not the option that permanently destroys water tables for billions.

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I believe the biggest source of emissions for nuclear actually come from the construction phase, so getting past that, maybe. Still would be preferable to also reduce energy use so that the “better” source can be spread more efficiently.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I believe the biggest source of emissions for nuclear actually come from the construction phase,

        While construction would be huge for emissions, I would guess the most emissions would come from the mining, transport, refinement, and disposal efforts for the fuel on an ongoing basis.

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          There’s emissions for any activity, but the nuclear fuel cycle seems pretty spread out to suggest it’s anything comparable to what the fossil fuel chain of fueling is like.