4 ms·

I'm all for nuclear in the short-term, but in the long-term it's just substituting one problem for another. I don't see how we can possibly break out of this c

• merpnderp 10y ago
  Human population is already leveling off. The richer a people become, the lower their reproduction rate. The lack of population growth has already become a major economic issue in many parts of the world. And we have, for all current intents and purposes, an infinite supply of nuclear, solar, and wind energy.
  • omginternets 10y ago
    The issue with nuclear power is waste, not supply. I'm the first to argue that radiological waste is the ideal form of toxic waste -- dense and contained -- but we still can't consume an infinite amount. Further, I question the notion that solar and wind power are infinite in supply. At some point, absorbing solar radiation that would otherwise heat the surface of the earth must have some effect on global weather patterns, and a similar argument can be made for wind power. I don't think we're anywhere near that point, but it just goes to show that the "infinite growth" mindset is extremely problematic in the long run. As for human population, this is true of first-world countries, but not universally true. India is an example of extreme demographic growth. Any way you want to cut it, our power (or, more generally, resource) demands cannot grow infinitely. Where you are correct is in pointing out that the population constraint is fundamentally at odds with the geopolitical and economic need for demographic growth. This is precisely the point I'm lamenting.