Okay, where is the comparison to nuclear? For that you have to build massive infrastructure, that costs billions, that no one want to insure, thats why it has to be backed by state money. After that the waste has to be managed by the state too, because no company wants to deal with the liability of radioactive waste for thousands of years at least, so that, too, comes out of the taxpayers pockets.

I don't like fossil fuels, but this is just plain stupid

(and also as a cherry on top, tschernobyl, fokushima)

[–] fellowmortal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sorry - What?

You said Denmark had converted to green energy. I pointed out that they haven't done anything like that. You are now moving the goal posts and saying "where is the comparative essay defending nuclear power"...

If you must, France turned completely green in the 70s. So they've provided 50 years of clean energy. Its a classic story and not as simple as I'm going to make out, but still. Look at the map link in the last post - any area that stays green is either using hydro or nuclear. Hydro is great, but you need mountains and water.

[–] WallEx@feddit.de 1 points 4 months ago

Sorry, yeah maybe that wasn't the best response.

But you still claiming nuclear is green is just crazy. There is still no place on earth that can hold nuclear waste. Especially not for the thousands of years that it would need. There is nothing clean about energy, that produces waste, that we can't even handle.

Also, the energy mix in Denmark is very renewable wherever possible (https://ens.dk/en/our-services/statistics-data-key-figures-and-energy-maps/annual-and-monthly-statistics)