4 ms·

From Akira Kurosawa's Dreams (1990): "They told us that nuclear plants were safe. Human accident is the danger, not the nuclear plant itself. No accidents,

From Akira Kurosawa's Dreams (1990): "They told us that nuclear plants were safe. Human accident is the danger, not the nuclear plant itself. No accidents, no danger. That's what they told us. What liars!"

controversy 6y ago
Please stop with this. Nuclear is the only way to keep our current level of society. Our solar plants are going to lead to massive poisoned landfills due to their heavy metals. They are hard to recycle and so many are just dumping them. Modern nuclear can meet all our needs and stop global warming. If we pursued nuclear in the last century, we would be facing global warming now.
- colordrops 6y ago
  More solar and wind and energy conversion and storage mechanisms can also keep our current level of society. Why can't we subsidize renewable forms of energy for trillions of dollars if our lives are truly at risk? Will these take any longer to spin up than nuclear? And are you suggesting that solar plants really create more toxins to dispose of than nuclear? Really?
  - formercoder 6y ago
    We shouldn’t subsidize anything, the government is bad at picking winners. We should tax carbon, let the market figure out the rest.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - colordrops 6y ago
      Don't get hung up on the word "subsidize". Market forces clearly did not solve our problem, so shifting the incentives won't solve it either. Many do not believe that nuclear is the answer, and a carbon tax wouldn't address that. It is indisputable that solar and wind are far cleaner than nuclear and coal, so the question is whether they can be made to work for most of our energy needs, and I've never seen a good reason why not.
      - spfzero 6y ago
        It is certainly not indisputable thar solar and wind are far cleaner than nuclear, if you include their externalities such as manufacturing and disposal. Nuclear is cleaner by far than coal or gas. It’s cleaner than solar or wind, though not by a lot. We have the death counts to prove this. I would so much prefer a few nuclear plants to a million acres of windmills. Where are we going to put them when they wear out. In what landfill will they fit?
  - controversy 6y ago
    Yes. The Swiss have safely encapsulated their waste into a building smaller than Norte Dame stadium. It will safely house their waste for centuries to come. The US doesn’t recycle its waste because the Democrats were afraid brown people would get nuclear material in transit and build dirty bombs. Europeans knew that was stupid and both recycle and store their waste reasonably. Further if we spend money on thorium you don’t have much waste at all. In fact you can use your current waste as the medium to kickstart the thorium reaction. Solar and chemical storage requires poisonous materials that will leech into the ground water.
    - 838hhh 6y ago
      > Solar and chemical storage requires poisonous materials that will leech into the ground water. Nobody is willing to acknowledge the elephant in the room
- federico33 6y ago
  > keep our current level of society That's the problem. The current level of hyperconsumerism is completely unsustainable. Cheaper electricity would only encourage more industrial production and pollution due to discarded goods.
  - colordrops 6y ago
    My point is to compare with nuclear. Your point is orthogonal and applies to nuclear as well.
- nl 6y ago
  > Nuclear is the only way to keep our current level of society. This is just wrong. > Our solar plants are going to lead to massive poisoned landfills due to their heavy metals. They are hard to recycle and so many are just dumping them. They aren't particularly hard to recycle - it's just that there hasn't been significant demand until now (15 year life cycles..). But plants are opening now, and the economics are quite good (because the heavy metals are quite valuable): https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/first-recycling-plant-europe-solar-panels https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/first-recy...
- imtringued 6y ago
  >Our solar plants are going to lead to massive poisoned landfills due to their heavy metals. "heavy metals" as in leaded solder, something that was banned in 2006?
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    > Our solar plants are going to lead to massive poisoned landfills due to their heavy metals. How anybody would suspect that metals were so fully recyclable again and again? You just melt it in a mold, and voila!. Raw material. That was a lot of luck. well,... unless they are radioactive metals of course. Then is more difficult.

controversy 6y ago

Please stop with this. Nuclear is the only way to keep our current level of society. Our solar plants are going to lead to massive poisoned landfills due to their heavy metals. They are hard to recycle and so many are just dumping them. Modern nuclear can meet all our needs and stop global warming. If we pursued nuclear in the last century, we would be facing global warming now.

colordrops 6y ago
More solar and wind and energy conversion and storage mechanisms can also keep our current level of society. Why can't we subsidize renewable forms of energy for trillions of dollars if our lives are truly at risk? Will these take any longer to spin up than nuclear? And are you suggesting that solar plants really create more toxins to dispose of than nuclear? Really?
- formercoder 6y ago
  We shouldn’t subsidize anything, the government is bad at picking winners. We should tax carbon, let the market figure out the rest.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - colordrops 6y ago
    Don't get hung up on the word "subsidize". Market forces clearly did not solve our problem, so shifting the incentives won't solve it either. Many do not believe that nuclear is the answer, and a carbon tax wouldn't address that. It is indisputable that solar and wind are far cleaner than nuclear and coal, so the question is whether they can be made to work for most of our energy needs, and I've never seen a good reason why not.
    - spfzero 6y ago
      It is certainly not indisputable thar solar and wind are far cleaner than nuclear, if you include their externalities such as manufacturing and disposal. Nuclear is cleaner by far than coal or gas. It’s cleaner than solar or wind, though not by a lot. We have the death counts to prove this. I would so much prefer a few nuclear plants to a million acres of windmills. Where are we going to put them when they wear out. In what landfill will they fit?
- controversy 6y ago
  Yes. The Swiss have safely encapsulated their waste into a building smaller than Norte Dame stadium. It will safely house their waste for centuries to come. The US doesn’t recycle its waste because the Democrats were afraid brown people would get nuclear material in transit and build dirty bombs. Europeans knew that was stupid and both recycle and store their waste reasonably. Further if we spend money on thorium you don’t have much waste at all. In fact you can use your current waste as the medium to kickstart the thorium reaction. Solar and chemical storage requires poisonous materials that will leech into the ground water.
  - 838hhh 6y ago
    > Solar and chemical storage requires poisonous materials that will leech into the ground water. Nobody is willing to acknowledge the elephant in the room
federico33 6y ago
> keep our current level of society That's the problem. The current level of hyperconsumerism is completely unsustainable. Cheaper electricity would only encourage more industrial production and pollution due to discarded goods.
- colordrops 6y ago
  My point is to compare with nuclear. Your point is orthogonal and applies to nuclear as well.
nl 6y ago
> Nuclear is the only way to keep our current level of society. This is just wrong. > Our solar plants are going to lead to massive poisoned landfills due to their heavy metals. They are hard to recycle and so many are just dumping them. They aren't particularly hard to recycle - it's just that there hasn't been significant demand until now (15 year life cycles..). But plants are opening now, and the economics are quite good (because the heavy metals are quite valuable): https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/first-recycling-plant-europe-solar-panels https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/first-recy...
imtringued 6y ago
>Our solar plants are going to lead to massive poisoned landfills due to their heavy metals. "heavy metals" as in leaded solder, something that was banned in 2006?
- pvaldes 6y ago
  > Our solar plants are going to lead to massive poisoned landfills due to their heavy metals. How anybody would suspect that metals were so fully recyclable again and again? You just melt it in a mold, and voila!. Raw material. That was a lot of luck. well,... unless they are radioactive metals of course. Then is more difficult.