4 ms·
> all we are fighting for is that nuclear is __part__ of the solution (not __the__ solution. Big difference). It seems to me that all this is about the balance
by natmaka 6y ago
> all we are fighting for is that nuclear is __part__ of the solution (not __the__ solution. Big difference).
It seems to me that all this is about the balance between the relative importance of nuclear in the solution and its costs, along with the risks it induces.
Having nuclear as part of the solution implies mass-production of plants parts (building a few plants is much more expensive and projects are nearly always way behind schedule), risk and waste, decommission costs... If nuclear power could solve the challenge (that is to say let us live as we do now while reaching the GIEC's objectives) it could be justified, but it fails far from it.
- godelski 6y agoWell it isn't like there is any other technology that can d it. The idea that renewables can do 100% is still theoretical. Likely, but theoretical. I'd rather not put all my eggs in one basket. Rather I'd look at Sweden and France which have some of the lowest CO2eq/capita (for energy). We should look to the future, but we should also follow what is already working. We can figure out how to burry a few dozen six packs worth of radioactive material after we solve the much larger problem. Besides, if you've been paying attention to this thread, that's a solved problem (just costly and needs will).
- natmaka 6y agoI would rather reduce the energy I consume than tolerate all burden induced by nuclear power (risk, waste for our descendants, overcentralization...). I repeat: after 70+ years of nuclear power exploitation there is no active and sufficient long-term waste repository. This doesn't seem to be a trivial problem. It is "solved in this thread", but not IRL.