• Rhaedas
    link
    fedilink
    02 months ago

    Unfortunately everything has byproducts and emissions that we do. The only real solution is to reduce, which is difficult given the population and so many third world nations wanting to join a higher standard of living. Natural gas is probably better than coal overall, but on the scale of bad for the environment where 10 is the worst, is an 8 or 9 better? Technically, yes.

    • @basmatii@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -42 months ago

      Then nuclear is your option, not the option that permanently destroys water tables for billions.

      • Rhaedas
        link
        fedilink
        22 months ago

        I believe the biggest source of emissions for nuclear actually come from the construction phase, so getting past that, maybe. Still would be preferable to also reduce energy use so that the “better” source can be spread more efficiently.

        • partial_accumen
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 months ago

          I believe the biggest source of emissions for nuclear actually come from the construction phase,

          While construction would be huge for emissions, I would guess the most emissions would come from the mining, transport, refinement, and disposal efforts for the fuel on an ongoing basis.

          • Rhaedas
            link
            fedilink
            12 months ago

            There’s emissions for any activity, but the nuclear fuel cycle seems pretty spread out to suggest it’s anything comparable to what the fossil fuel chain of fueling is like.