6 ms·
> and future generations will pay the price for using fossil fuels instead of nuclear IMO this is pretty short-sighted and ironic in itself - I really don't th
by nottoberudebut 8y ago
> and future generations will pay the price for using fossil fuels instead of nuclear
IMO this is pretty short-sighted and ironic in itself - I really don't think future generations will be thankful that we left them huge chunks of radioactive waste.
All the pro-nuclear folks seem to miss another important thing - uranium isn't growing on trees, the mining is probably as destructive as coal mining, and the worldwide supply is finite - we simply couldn't mine enough uranium to power the entire world for a long time.
- merpnderp 8y agoWe have plenty of uranium. For all intents and purposes, we have an infinite supply of uranium that would have minimal environmental impact to mine, at roughly 2x existing prices of ore mined from the ground. As for wastes, all the truly nasty stuff will be naturally decayed in a hundred years or so. And we have real solutions that we don't use for political reasons. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/#54a7dbc1159a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...
- ben_w 8y agoI’ve seen wildly divergent estimates for how much uranium we have. Personally I’d rather use renewable and storage for the ground, and keep the atomic fuel for spacecraft just in case we can’t make lightweight fusion engines.