this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
1137 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

58303 readers
9 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hydropower is about as bad for most ecosystems as burning fossil fuels. And its definitely not something that can be done quick or cheaply.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Whats the source on it being about as bad?
It releases methane, yes.
We don't have to do hydro. Wind and the Sun are already plenty enough.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

UNs IPCC Reports https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/Chapter-5-Hydropower-1.pdf See fig 5.15. The outliers are the concern (and yes, it's pretty much methane)

Edit: I reread the parent comment, the above won't address what you asked for, but is interesting nonetheless so I'll leave it

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Thank you for the paper.
This does indeed clarify exact numbers that i didnt have.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Nuclear produces the least emissions over it's life cycle and has a safety rating that flip flops with solar depending on how they want to classify accidents in construction and preparation.

If you want a sustainable, clean and reliable future, your power grid needs Wind, Solar and Nuclear. There is absolutely no reason to exclude Nuclear Power from any green energy plan.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And a dam failure isn't that much better than a nuclear accident, and far more common and less regulated

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just building and completing a damn is worse for the environment and local ecosystems than a category seven catastrophic nuclear accident.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're getting downvoted, but there's some truth in it. You don't just build a dam, you flood thousands of square miles and destroy hundreds of microcosms. Species have gone extinct due to dams. Not to mention that you can literally never remove them, because stupid humans build cities at their feet.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ive come to find on reddit and lemmu that people don't actually understand anything about nuclear energy, citing how bad Chernobyl is yet ignoring that not only is there still life in the exclusion zone, new species have emerged and been identified, where as successful dams that didn't have any failures irrevocably damage and destroyed ecosystem upstream and downstream.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not to mention that in the hundred years of nuclear plants, 30 people have died in TOTAL. Coal mines have killed a hundred thousand in the US alone, and windmills kill a few thousand in the UK alone each year. Nuclear has only killed 30 people. In a hundred years. Fukishima didn't hurt a single person.