3 ms·
I don't buy this because we could have easily kept on building nuclear power plants. There was temporarily an energy shock, but the long-term issue is insuffici
by Ericson2314 6y ago
I don't buy this because we could have easily kept on building nuclear power plants. There was temporarily an energy shock, but the long-term issue is insufficient demand not (energy) supply.
- jandrese 6y agoNuclear Power Plants don't move people and goods around, at least not with 1970s battery technology.
- Ericson2314 6y agoFalse. Trains. Surely it is no coincidence that high speed rail and nuclear power both became common around the same time.
- spurgu 6y agoMost of the machines that run the world don't run on electricity, but oil. An easy to build open-source pocket sized fusion reactor would be nice.
- Fazel94 6y agoThen a Chernobyl would only bankrupt households and not a bunch of countries. It would be like healthcare in the United States. Families would go bankrupt since their reactor faces problems :)
- Fazel94 6y agoI think the problem with nuclear energy is that it requires prior investment and return on investment is a little bit long(more than 4 years) and doesn't create enough jobs to be a sexy political option.