5 ms·
Yet... I'm all in for nuclear, once we know how to get rid of the waste products. It's never been about reactor safety, we have a storage problem, that hasn't
by j-pb 6y ago
Yet...
I'm all in for nuclear, once we know how to get rid of the waste products.
It's never been about reactor safety, we have a storage problem, that hasn't been solved yet. Without that we're just slithering into the next "waste product that we don't know how to get rid of" cycle.
Also even if we had solved it, it's too late to go nuclear now.
The next 20 years will be crucial when it comes to stopping climate change. We simply don't have the time to waste 7.5 years on building new reactors. What we need to do is ramp up the production of existing tech to the max. It's much easier to scale the current renewable production capacity horizontally than scale vertically with nuclear.
- kortilla 6y ago“It’s never been about reactor safety” - except that was the excuse during the 90s and 00s when we should have been building. Storage is still an imaginary pile of what-if “issues” while the world fucking burns. The scale of the issue of nuclear waste storage orders of magnitude smaller than climate change. Yet we still talk about it while burning nat gas and goal.
- arcticbull 6y agoNot to mention we can just drop it all into Yucca Mountain and never think about it again. I'm surprised given this project was abandoned by the Obama administration, Trump hasn't reversed it on principle.
- isodude 6y agoAFAIK, we have enough material on land to power for quite a while in the future, if you use gen4 facilities.