• Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    The discussion may not have been nuclear vs coal, but the reality was. That’s the whole problem.

    • hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      2 x No it isn’t. I know you love your precious precious nuclear to death and back and you really really need to discuss coal to better shill for it. Nobody cares about your religion and your straw man.

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

        “Nuh uh!”

        Okay whatever lol. Deny reality all you want. More nuclear = less coal, it’s very simple math. Anyone not blinded by “scary nuclear!” can see it.

        • hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Nuclear just means massive potential radioactive pollution as there is no secure storage for the radioactive waste. You are now going to claim there is proven safe storage, there just a couple of mishaps really.

          Also, more importantly, there isn’t even enough fission material to sustain demand for significant time if Germany and others were to switch. But sure lets’s just skip and ignore renewables. Renewables pollute so much.