3 ms·
Nuclear? Safe, cheap: Pick one… at most. Hydro? Only works in very few venues, especially in the developed world. Not to mention the wide-spread ecological dam
by creshal 10y ago
Nuclear? Safe, cheap: Pick one… at most.
Hydro? Only works in very few venues, especially in the developed world. Not to mention the wide-spread ecological damage when you do manage to build one.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- marcoperaza 10y agoI'll tell you what's not cheap: implementing the emissions cuts that governments want us to swallow without nuclear power. We'd have to substantially reduce energy consumption because the politically-acceptable forms of alternative energy simply cannot meet our demand. And we're actually so stupid that these deals allow our geopolitical enemies to continue to grow their emissions while we are forced to cut ours, allowing them to more quickly overtake us in economic and political power. Just another way the greatest civilization in the history of the world is suddenly intent on throwing it all away.
- DennisP 10y agoMolten salt reactors look both safe and cheap. Half a dozen startups are trying to get governments to let them build prototypes.
- creshal 10y agoEven if you can wish away all the problems with the technology (good luck), molten salt reactors are too easy to modify to produce weapons-grade uranium/plutonium. Not something I'd want to see most nations to get their hands on.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoI think that's just the opposite of the case. They can be built with only traces of plutonium, and its dissolved in tons of sodium salts. Not easy at all.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]