@silence7@slrpnk.netM to Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.@slrpnk.netEnglish • 4 months agoU.S. Seeks to Boost Nuclear Power After Decades of Inertia | Measures moving through Congress to encourage new reactors are receiving broad bipartisan supportwww.nytimes.comexternal-linkmessage-square36fedilinkarrow-up190arrow-down17cross-posted to: news@lemmy.worldnyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
arrow-up183arrow-down1external-linkU.S. Seeks to Boost Nuclear Power After Decades of Inertia | Measures moving through Congress to encourage new reactors are receiving broad bipartisan supportwww.nytimes.com@silence7@slrpnk.netM to Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.@slrpnk.netEnglish • 4 months agomessage-square36fedilinkcross-posted to: news@lemmy.worldnyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
minus-squareDerGottesknechtlinkfedilink2•edit-24 months agoWind kills 0.04 per TWH, nuclear 0.03 and solar 0.02. Why is nuclear acceptable for you and wind not?
minus-square@drknowledge@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink1•edit-24 months agoWind IS acceptable. Read the last paragraph. The first part of the comment is merely addressing the people that suggest solar only as it’s the only source with less attributed deaths per terawatt hour. I’m also partial to the Norwegian hydro model.
Wind kills 0.04 per TWH, nuclear 0.03 and solar 0.02. Why is nuclear acceptable for you and wind not?
Wind IS acceptable. Read the last paragraph. The first part of the comment is merely addressing the people that suggest solar only as it’s the only source with less attributed deaths per terawatt hour. I’m also partial to the Norwegian hydro model.