252
submitted 2 days ago by sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al to c/energy@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Skasi@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

This statistic includes nuclear and bioenergy. I'm unsure about bioenergy, but nuclear certainly can not qualify as green. Unless you mean green glowing stuff, like nuclear waste is often depicted.

Also 100years are a very long time

Yes and humanity is sometimes very very very slow to change for the better.

[-] jaycifer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

They’re probably using green to mean “not CO2 producing” given the context of the discussion being about CO2 emissions. As far as I’m aware nuclear energy fits that criteria.

[-] Skasi@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

They’re probably using green to mean “not CO2 producing” given the context of the discussion being about CO2 emissions

I understand the argument and yes CO2 emissions are indeed lower. However, only marketing/sales/lobbyists/politicians would use that to sell it as green energy. It's not green, it's not environment friendly, it's not renewable.

Actually one could argue that it is extremely environment friendly, seeing as Chernobyl has become a wildlife sanctuary.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

nuclear certainly can not qualify as green

In terms of carbon emissions, it's pretty lean. You're only really talking about the cost of concrete and of harvesting uranium fuel, which is negligible beside the cost of coal or natural gas.

humanity is sometimes very very very slow to change for the better.

The turnover to wind and solar has been genuinely shocking in its rapidity. Market forces are one hell of a drug.

this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2026
252 points (97.7% liked)

Green Energy

4591 readers
124 users here now

Everything about energy production and storage.

Related communities:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS