Skasi comments on Wind Power Produced 140% Of Electricity Demand in Denmark

[–] Skasi@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] jaycifer@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Skasi@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent