~~IMO, it is if you factor in the fact that it's currently the fastest way of actually replacing the energy generated by fossil fuels before the earth becomes totally incompatible with human life.~~ Nope, I'm wrong, see replies.

[–] jose1324@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

.. but that's literally not true?

[–] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Actually, seems you're right though it's obviously still more complicated than either one or the other. I was using outdated information, my bad.

Did some more research. A few links:

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-why-nuclear-won-t-cut-it-if-we-want-to-drop-carbon-as-quickly-as-possible

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315

https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2020/Q2/can-renewable-energy-really-replace-fossil-fuels.html (Talks only about renewable energy but not nuclear, though I still found it helpful)

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 9 points 1 year ago

Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for looking into this further and being brave to admit when you’re wrong. That’s a really admirable quality which is way too uncommon these days!

For the safety aspect, I don’t think deaths is the most helpful comparison - considering for nuclear that many, many thousands of people will have to deal with health problems caused by radiation exposure over decades. Lots of people argue that the Chernobyl death toll should include people who die from the effects of that radiation, which would push the numbers from ~300 dead to tens of thousands.