4 ms·

Nuclear is the only form of energy of all those we know thats both. Green, reliable, scaleable. The fact that it countries shied away from it because of environ

Nuclear is the only form of energy of all those we know thats both. Green, reliable, scaleable. The fact that it countries shied away from it because of environmental organizations is the real catastrophe. But as usual the best solution doesn't always win. Solar and wind would also be expensive if they hadn't been subsidized. Nuclear has killed fewer people than coal, fossil fuel, wind and solar. Plus once built it last for a very very long time. Perhaps you should take a few seconds to look at the actual data. There is nothing old-fashioned about nuclear especially not the new types of reactors and there is certainly no other form of energy besides fusion which can provide the amount of energy nuclear can. So no nuclear is the idea you should support if you actually care about the environment. Solar is toxic to the environment and requires quite a lot to keep functioning wind is the same. To get wind and solar to work consistently and reliably through some sort of grid system is going to be a project many many times bigger than nuclear and it's not going to be the increasing demand from the developing countries where more and more people get into the middle class. So you are from my perspective completely wrong about your idea of solar and wind as being the future of energy for the world. They are not and will not be. They simply aren't reliable and scaleable enough sources fuell cells or not.

epistasis 8y ago
It doesn't matter how much I support nuclear, my "support" does absolutely nothing to make it economical or buildable. It's all a fantasy. The only reason that nuclear gets built is so that a country can support their nuclear submarines/aircraft carriers. Nuclear energy is not a realistic solution to anything, because building it is not realistic. >Solar and wind would also be expensive if they hadn't been subsidized. The entirety of nuclear has been subsidized as the technology has been created, just as solar and wind have. What matters now is what can be built. Nuclear can not be built without spending 3x-5x what we'd spend for equivalent wind or solar. And that's ignoring the cases where billions of dollars have been spent and then completely abandoned. Your doubt of solar and wind are at least 10 years out of date. As are your nuclear ideas, because they were the same things being said in 2008 during the "nuclear renaissance." It all proved to be completely false. Westinghouse was given a shot, and it continues to end up blowing up Westinghouse's parent company, Toshiba. If you can not address the specifics of Westinghouse, Toshiba, VC Summer, Vogtle, or Hinckley, then you are just spreading outdated propaganda.

epistasis 8y ago

It doesn't matter how much I support nuclear, my "support" does absolutely nothing to make it economical or buildable. It's all a fantasy. The only reason that nuclear gets built is so that a country can support their nuclear submarines/aircraft carriers. Nuclear energy is not a realistic solution to anything, because building it is not realistic. >Solar and wind would also be expensive if they hadn't been subsidized. The entirety of nuclear has been subsidized as the technology has been created, just as solar and wind have. What matters now is what can be built. Nuclear can not be built without spending 3x-5x what we'd spend for equivalent wind or solar. And that's ignoring the cases where billions of dollars have been spent and then completely abandoned. Your doubt of solar and wind are at least 10 years out of date. As are your nuclear ideas, because they were the same things being said in 2008 during the "nuclear renaissance." It all proved to be completely false. Westinghouse was given a shot, and it continues to end up blowing up Westinghouse's parent company, Toshiba. If you can not address the specifics of Westinghouse, Toshiba, VC Summer, Vogtle, or Hinckley, then you are just spreading outdated propaganda.