←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.226s | source
Show context
jama211 ◴[] No.45225631[source]
I’m totally fine with nuclear honestly, but I feel like I don’t understand something. No one seems to be able to give me a straight answer with proper facts that explain why we couldn’t just make a whole load more renewable energy generators instead. Sure, it might cost more, but in theory any amount of power a nuclear plant would generate could also be achieved with large amounts of renewables no?
replies(26): >>45225678 #>>45225705 #>>45225742 #>>45225743 #>>45225786 #>>45225863 #>>45225896 #>>45225964 #>>45226093 #>>45226293 #>>45226552 #>>45226586 #>>45226616 #>>45226811 #>>45227067 #>>45227755 #>>45228653 #>>45228868 #>>45229249 #>>45229656 #>>45229704 #>>45229917 #>>45229942 #>>45229970 #>>45230035 #>>45231308 #
zvrba ◴[] No.45229942[source]
Nuclear has the highest energy density (kWh produced per km2). "Renewables" need much larger areas to produce equivalent power. This means that habitats for many species are negatively affected or destroyed.

This is an ongoing debate in Norway where local people are strongly against wind turbines because they want to preserve the nature as it is.

EDIT: Relevant poster in the picture. I once was approached by Greenpeace activist on the street who was collecting money. While I would gladly donate to WWF, I said sharp "NO" to him and explained that it was because Greenpeace opposes nuclear.

replies(6): >>45230172 #>>45230190 #>>45230720 #>>45231436 #>>45232300 #>>45241081 #
LinXitoW ◴[] No.45230190[source]
I obviously don't know about Norway, but in most developed countries, the number one reason for habitat destruction or disruption is going to be animal agriculture, or highspeed road infrastructure. While I can't prove it, it seems too convenient that people suddenly care about "nature" right after they've fucked it up for so many other reasons.
replies(2): >>45230912 #>>45232331 #
LunaSea ◴[] No.45230912[source]
> the number one reason for habitat destruction or disruption is going to be animal agriculture, or highspeed road infrastructure

The surface of both of these things hasn't changed much in the last 30 years.

replies(1): >>45231438 #
1. Aachen ◴[] No.45231438[source]
> The surface of both of these things hasn't changed much in the last 30 years.

Source?

It was also my understanding that large amounts of habitat (e.g. Amazon rainforest) are lost for agriculture in general, and that cows are a particularly large part of that

Road surfaces I don't specifically know in terms of habitat area loss, but they split up habitat areas, and surely we'll have gotten more road surface as we went from ~6 to ~8 billion people on the planet in the last 30 years? How could that have stayed roughly the same?!