3 ms·
Im not sure if it's so hard. There already exist a strong narrative that it wasn't so bad,and severe misconduct and negligence must happen for a big disaster. A
by YayamiOmate 7y ago
Im not sure if it's so hard. There already exist a strong narrative that it wasn't so bad,and severe misconduct and negligence must happen for a big disaster. And that in absolute terms it wasn't so bad.
I thinkits easy to politically argue for nukes. They are like planes, when they crash it's a big deal, still comparatively safest method.
I am not a fan of mass producing waste that renders some area or space inhabitable for most of life, for longer than our written history or even our species. Though, maybe it's better than burning fossils as a mean of getting to
something cleaner and safer (and cheap). Tough choice.
I think i'd nuke waste and some disasters over greenhouse I guess, especially runaway.
- DoctorOetker 7y agoI am really curious about tidal energy projects, since in principle the cost for the wall is linearly proportional to the circumference, but the energy stored is proportional to the area, hence quadratic in price. Roughly speaking a project 10 times as expensive would store and generate 100 times as much energy... Unlike solar and wind, the tides are very predictable and 2 cycles per day are guaranteed. The constant false dilemma between nuclear and coal is poisoning the discussions and blinding us from investing in alternatives... Did the Japanese project for tidal energy get scrapped? Wikipedia is mute about the current status at [1] and doesn't list the Japanese tidal energy project as under construction at [2] either... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan#Ocean_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan#Ocean_energy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tidal_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tidal_power_stations