• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not meant to be “fair;” it’s meant to shock people with how ridiculously bad burning coal is. Think about it: it’s crazy that a trace-element unused byproduct of coal production is a pollutant being produced on the same order of magnitude as the thing in nuclear power that’s actually producing all the power. Until people read it, they’d probably guess that coal either produced no radiation at all, or many orders of magnitude less than nuclear, but nope. And on the other end of it, if that tiny fraction of coal’s pollution output is enough to rival all of nuclear, I think it helps put a finer point on just how much worse all the rest of it is.

      • ultracritical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not unfair, nor is it misleading. Coal contains a few parts per million of uranium. Sometimes more depending on source. So when burned this uranium is released into the atmosphere. When used for fission uranium has about 200 million times the energy density then burning the carbon carbon bonds in coal. So kilo for kilo a coal power plant dumps about as much uranium and other nasty trace elements into the atmosphere then a nuclear plant has in it’s core.

        The situation is even more unfavorable for coal as nuke plants don’t typically dump any of their primary radioactive elements to atmosphere. Increasing scale of nuclear doesn’t change this either as it would require every nuclear plant on the planet to go full Chernobyl just to match what coal outputs.

      • HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fuck of with that false dichotomy shit. Just because something isn’t fair (like life), doesn’t mean it’s misleading.