131 ms·

I'm trying to understand from what you got your snark from. Do you refer to: "I think the renewable industry will end up better and cheaper than the current sy

by blumio 5y ago

I'm trying to understand from what you got your snark from. Do you refer to: "I think the renewable industry will end up better and cheaper than the current system but if I'm wrong about the renewables industry being good at optimising that bundle of benefits, problems and"? As far as I know, nuclear fuel is rare and we don't have a solution to thorium reactors yet. I would personally not mind more nuclear were it makes sense though. Germany is not very suited though as it's quite populated but there is plenty of empty space in USA. There is a risk though as current nuclear power station have issues in drought situations. Nonetheless I haven't read is arguments. Perhaps he wrote about it.

FabHK 5y ago
> I'm trying to understand from what you got your snark from. Do you refer to [...] I think GP might refer to footnote 1 in the article: > [...] one could technically replace fossil fuels with nuclear power. it would just be more expensive, more dangerous and slower - so probably only a few billion dead. Personally, I think modern nuclear reactors (that are optimised for safety and efficiency, not for generating nuclear weapons material) and a tad more sensible regulation could make nuclear power safe and cheap, and turn nuclear (together with renewables, of course) into a formidable weapon against global warming.