4 ms·
I think parent post is downplaying things a bit, but I'd take the risk of 100k people bring displaced by a nuclear accident over 100's of millions of people bei
by GVIrish 10y ago
I think parent post is downplaying things a bit, but I'd take the risk of 100k people bring displaced by a nuclear accident over 100's of millions of people being displaced by climate change.
- mcv 10y agoI totally agree. But when we have the option to not displace anyone, I prefer that. Nuclear technology is to me at best a transitional technology to fill the gap until solar is ready to take over. And it seems solar kind of is already. I'm not arguing for taking nuclear reactors offline, but it's not clear to me why we should build new ones if solar is cheaper and cleaner. Of course large scale electricity storage is still an issue for solar, and I can understand solar isn't the best option for cloudy countries, but I do think it's important to look beyond nuclear.
- GVIrish 10y agoIf we can get there with mostly solar, I'd be all for it. I just hope we don't get into a situation of perfection paralysis where we wait so long for the perfect solution that the adequate solution doesn't get implemented and we end up with worse consequences.