3 ms·

I'm not ok with going early 1900s. Most people aren't. I keep saying "nuclear", you keep saying "no". So I'm not going to consider myself part of the problem.

• ryanmercer 8y ago
  >I keep saying "nuclear", you keep saying "no". Uhhhh, I never said no to nuclear. I said at best it's a bandaid. We have a few decades to make some very considerable changes, maybe two centuries to find alternative means of energy (fusion, mining asteroids for PV and battery materials etc as there's a very finite amount of the materials needed for manufacturing batteries and panels on earth too). People like to say nuclear is our savior but, at current energy production levels, with a moderate estimate for continued growth, there's maybe 100 years of fuel there. Nuclear just isn't a solution for the world's energy needs, it however is a GREAT solution for generating considerable amounts of power in small spaces (ice breakers, submarines) and for portable power for emergencies like with the Russian floating nuclear power stations (Google the Akademik Lomonosov).
  • _Tev 8y ago
    > there's maybe 100 years of fuel there At least you have not made the mistake of inclusion "waste" as a problem in the same post. Breeder reactors solve this. Yes, fuel will be significantly more expensive because of them. But all these "issues" with nuclear (except capital intensivity, that will likely stay) will go away.