5 ms·

I'm for nuclear energy as it gets us away from coal the most reliably, but investing in solar, wind, geothermal, etc works too if we're serious about it. Not on

• bluejekyll 7y ago
  Seems that building nuclear plants takes much too long to have any noticeable effect in the short term, better to take it off the table so that it’s not present as a red-herring.
• umvi 7y ago
  > but investing in solar, wind, geothermal, etc works too if we're serious about it. 2 questions: Don't huge windfarms affect the local climate and wildlife? Afaik we don't know the long term effects of massive sustained wind farms. Have we solved the solar storage problem yet? I read something about massive battery plants and/or high speed flywheel energy storage, but as far as I know this is still a problem. I vote we go all in on nuclear just to quickly remove coal, and then slowly phase out nuclear with better, low-impact renewables.
  • avmich 7y ago
    > we don't know the long term effects of massive sustained wind farms. Yes, and we should pay (with money) more attention to study that. However we shouldn't/can't stop because of that and wait till we'll know more certainly - in general; some decisions need to be made early, and this question is an example. > Have we solved the solar storage problem yet? We have a variety of ways to store energy, and we're getting better with it with time, so forecasts here are optimistic. This is still a problem, but, again, we may move forward with other parts while we improving on batteries. > I vote we go all in on nuclear I think with nuclear we're uncapping worst case scenarios. This is harder to calculate, so I'm hesitant.