3 ms·
Given the impossibility of getting more than a very few people to dial down their energy intensity, probably need to think about nuclear. But if there’s anythin
by quantified 5y ago
Given the impossibility of getting more than a very few people to dial down their energy intensity, probably need to think about nuclear. But if there’s anything we’ve clearly demonstrated, it’s that we are not very competent at storing the waste. Maybe thorium reactors will be better. Otherwise, we’ll trade temperature for radiation and be having a different crisis in a generation or two.
Replace all the coal plants with nuclear across the world. All the countries with their shifting politics and conflicts. Now picture managing the fuels, reactors and waste products competently, securely and reliably.
- kelnos 5y agoAre we particularly competent about disposing/storing the waste from coal plants? My impression was that we aren't. The dangers are not the same, of course, but I still think it's worth noting. And nuclear disposal isn't that hard. Bury it. Deep and shielded. We have sites for this already, but NIMBYs are blocking use of them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...).