3 ms·

The past is a good predictor of the future... until it isn't. Extremely drastic change is needed to avert climate emergencies. How much of the problems you dis

The past is a good predictor of the future... until it isn't. Extremely drastic change is needed to avert climate emergencies. How much of the problems you discuss go away when the red tape has been cut? I don't buy that waste is a serious problem. The US treats all secondary waste as if it's red hot. And as I said above, all extant reactor designs are decades old. If your only point of comparison is 60 year old computers using 10s of kilowatts, you might argue that computers will never be economical to use. Yet smartphone CPUs have a TDP of what, one watt? > Until now the taxpayer covers it, but our impoverished nations just cannot cope anymore. Our nations have plenty of money it's just all concentrated at the very top. We used to fund advanced reactor projects [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment

Krasnol 7y ago
> Extremely drastic change is needed to avert climate emergencies. Good, than nuclear is nothing we have to think about because it's construction times are ridiculously long while renewable energy is getting better and cheaper rapidly. > Our nations have plenty of money it's just all concentrated at the very top. We used to fund advanced reactor projects [1] We've been throwing ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money on that for decades. Show is over. Time to give the money to technologies of the future not ones of the past. Even France sees this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclearpower-astrid/france-drops-plans-to-build-sodium-cooled-nuclear-reactor-idUSKCN1VK0MC https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclearpower-astri...
- natmaka 7y ago
  France, often cited as a sound nuke-advocate (world tally: second nation in raw amount of grid electricity produced by nuclear plants, and first by the part of it) is in fact... ... escaping from it! A law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") states that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewables must replace it. 2 years later the government (lacking funds and unable to cope) reported it to 2025, then 2 years later to 2035 ("programmation pluriannuelle de l'énergie"). However the political and strategical orientation is perfectly clear, just don't believe France is on the nuke camp.

Krasnol 7y ago

> Extremely drastic change is needed to avert climate emergencies. Good, than nuclear is nothing we have to think about because it's construction times are ridiculously long while renewable energy is getting better and cheaper rapidly. > Our nations have plenty of money it's just all concentrated at the very top. We used to fund advanced reactor projects [1] We've been throwing ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money on that for decades. Show is over. Time to give the money to technologies of the future not ones of the past. Even France sees this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclearpower-astrid/france-drops-plans-to-build-sodium-cooled-nuclear-reactor-idUSKCN1VK0MC https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclearpower-astri...

natmaka 7y ago
France, often cited as a sound nuke-advocate (world tally: second nation in raw amount of grid electricity produced by nuclear plants, and first by the part of it) is in fact... ... escaping from it! A law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") states that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewables must replace it. 2 years later the government (lacking funds and unable to cope) reported it to 2025, then 2 years later to 2035 ("programmation pluriannuelle de l'énergie"). However the political and strategical orientation is perfectly clear, just don't believe France is on the nuke camp.