Comment on Microsoft Needs So Much Power to Train AI That It's Considering Small Nuclear Reactors
Rakonat@lemmy.world 1 year agoA dam has a higher probability of exploding than a Nuclear Reactor. A WIND TURBINE has a higher probability of exploding than a Nuclear Reactor.
Nobsi@feddit.de 1 year ago
I havent heard of a Wind Turbine causing Fukushima. I think it was Nuclear.
What was the other one… Chernobyl Wind and Solar Farm?
Stumblinbear@pawb.social 1 year ago
Wow two whole accidents in a hundred years? One of them didn’t hurt a single person? The other only killed 30 people? Crazy! That’s SO dangerous?
What…? Coal mining killed a hundred thousand people in the last century? In the US alone?
Nobsi@feddit.de 1 year ago
Aren’t you forgetting something?
Liquidators also died way after the explosion from having to clean up all the rubble.
You can still not live in the area and will probably not be able to in many lifetimes.
Stumblinbear@pawb.social 1 year ago
Oh man one whole accidents from obvious negligence which is easily resolved by the absolute most basic of regulation. Are you implying we’re as bad as the USSR when it comes to basic safety? There have been hundreds of thousands of reactors going perfectly fine since then.
Rakonat@lemmy.world 1 year ago
More people have died working in Wind than Nuclear. And Nuclear has lower carbon emissions than Wind Turbines to boot. I’m not arguing we shouldn’t be using Wind Turbines, we absolutely should, but the best, cleanest energy grid human kind can hope for right now is a combination of Solar, Wind and Nuclear, because each of three has very distinct advantages and disadvantages that complement each other while doing the least ecological and environmental damage compared to other alternatives.