Sidechat logo
Download TikTok Instagram X
Sidechat icon
Join communities on Sidechat Download
US Politics icon
US Politics 2w
Yes this is awful and unacceptable. But also yes wind turbines (and solar) are ugly and horribly space-inefficient. This is why we should be building as much NUCLEAR as possible as quickly as possible
US Politics icon
US Politics 2w
“B-b-b-but the wind turbines are so ugly”
28 upvotes. Sidechat image post by Anonymous in US Politics. "“B-b-b-but the wind turbines are so ugly”"
comment

9
upvote 3 downvote
user profile icon
Anonymous 2w

Idk if I should upvote or downvote you because I LOVE nuclear so much and won’t shut up about what a miracle of science nuclear energy is, but also wind and solar are far better than doing nothing (nothing meaning keeping coal and oil) and you’d be an asshole to disagree with that last part.

upvote 7 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 2w

Solar and wind is better for rural areas that have the land and low demand, nuclear is better for population centers with high density of people with high demand. But when considering safety, the benefits of nuclear in urban centers becomes a much bigger weakness compared to rural. When you add monetary value to the yearly risk, even if a fraction of a percent, when scaled by the risk impact - it becomes a very difficult problem to solve

upvote 3 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 2w

Dude nuclear is not a long-term solution

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #1 2w

I do agree with this to an extent, solar and wind can be excellent in the right use cases and are important grid-fillers. But nuclear is actually THE safest method of power generation by deaths/kWh, even edging out wind and solar in some counts when factoring in installation and maintenance accidents, and transmission efficiency is plenty good enough to locate reactors well outside of population centers.

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 2w

Chernobyl was a freak outlier accident due to outright negligent corner-cutting in reactor design, and actually not even as bad as most believe, leading to only 31 confirmed deaths directly attributable, and probably under 10,000 abnormal incidences of cancer, many non-fatal. Fukushima was similarly caused by negligence and the only deaths were from evacuation accidents. TMI was basically a worst case scenario for an American reactor, and no one even received a meaningful dose of radiation

upvote 1 downvote
user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> justinian 2w
post
upvote 8 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 2w

What 4 said also. And with recycling technology that we already have we could get close to a century of power from just our existing nuclear waste

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> justinian 2w

Hard agree, but it would also be a genuine ecological tragedy in its own way if we destroyed millions of acres of natural lands for less efficient renewables, when we have such a superior alternative readily available. It’s a tough balancing act for sure

upvote 6 downvote
user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 2w

ok you won. Upvoted.

upvote 2 downvote