You don’t build a conclusion for a technology based on sweeping aside risks of your favoured solution while emphasising the risks of your favoured solution, which is what you did with your “There are zero catastrophes with[…]” comment.

You lay it all out and compare the whole model.

I think laying it all out for wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear, will raise a whole lot of issues with all the technologies. Some specific models of tech will have unresolvable issues (e.g, megadams, dense solar-farms on arable land, any nuclear tech which can feed proliferation).

I suspect the whole supply/waste-chain for nuclear will have unresolvable issues, and very few of the hydro/solar will have unresolvable issues.

Trouble is getting people to agree on how to compare the risk of a well-engineered dam failing and the risk of your nuclear waste storage leaking into the water table, or a contaminated coolant pipe spraying vapour into the prevailing wind, or radioactive contaminated scrap metal making its way into the commercial steel market, or…

Anyone suggesting the thorium-pebble-bed or similar “holy-grail” 100% safe theoretical tech seems to be living between fantasy and pipe-dream.

I only mean it’s a false claim to imply that wind/water/solar energy are inherently zero catastrophe risk.

That said, I think coming close to fully understanding and assessing (and mitigating) the risk of wind/water/solar power projects/economies is far more achievable than for nuclear energy projects/economies.

Especially so when considering the unavoidable context of the (un)predictability of both humans and environment over the next 10,000 - 100,000 years.

There are zero catastrophes with wind, water or earth energy because when you shut it down, it is off and possess no further potential to harm people.

Turn the hyperbole down a little:

• https://chillopedia.com/top-15-worst-dam-disasters-ever/
• https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/openindia/mega-dams-campaigning-against-plans-of-indian-government/

[Meta] Currently 3 upvotes, 13 downvotes. Interesting.

What do up/down votes mean? On a post, I always figured an upvote to mean “This is relevant to the community and should be posted here.”, and a downvote to mean “This is irrelevant to the community or should not have be posted here.”. [/Meta]

I’m not really sure what to make of the linked blog post – I think x-compasses are an oversimplification, that the fediverse has moved and diversified since the post was written, and now lemmy instances are quite a prominent mode of engagement in the fediverse; but some of the problems and stereotypes they painted in the post are still recognisable today, however inaccurate the depiction may be.

I think Assange is a legendary journalist who (to put it mildly) is bearing the brunt of a fucked up assault on the free press by CIA/etc.

Nothing at all! If anything I mentioned it as a point of approval from me, and stating them to clearly not be in the same camp as the banned-from-twitter-because-right-wing-extremists.

I’m not sure it’s that kind of banned from twitter. The figures behind it seem to associate themselves with Wikileaks and/or Julian Assange. Suzie Dawson, for example, is hosting the video presentations about the plaform.

To be clear I don’t mean to shit on the platform, I’m just approaching it with a lot of cynicism. I want to understand what it is and its problems and merits.