4 ms·
I really wish hydro/wind/solar were enough to power our modern society, and I hope it gets there eventually, but the reality is that it isn't enough to meet our
by rekoil 5y ago
I really wish hydro/wind/solar were enough to power our modern society, and I hope it gets there eventually, but the reality is that it isn't enough to meet our current (and expanding) demands.
The short term answer nobody seems to want to acknowledge is nuclear, and frankly I'm getting pretty damn tired of society not seeing it.
We need to start building out nuclear NOW so that we (and future generations) have time to figure out renewables and improved nuclear.
- Ygg2 5y agoTo twist the knife further some maniacs are now looking at hydro power and decrying it as too dangerous for wildlife. It popped in my YouTube recommend. Like motherfucker (to the video maker). You think the salmon are going to exist if the acidity of ocean rises? It's akin to burning in a house, fireman arrives with a hose and then I ask him, is the water iron free or not. I think I should have bigger concerns rn. At this point, I am wondering if some of these videos are sponsored by oil associates.
- rocqua 5y agoI doubt these are sponsored. But some people would advocate less energy usage in general. Essentially saying we are poisoning and destroying the planet with energy usage. I doubt people who advocate this see an acceptable way forward to reach what they want. I personally think there isn't such a way forward. But I can see arguing for a desired endstate without knowing exactly how to get there.
- fifilura 5y agoHow is nuclear a short term answer? It takes 20 years to build a nuclear plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant). I think the idea is that if we instead build alternatives we will not want those plants in 20 years.
- Ygg2 5y agoBy keeping currently running nuclear plants running. Instead of replacing them withmore CO2 emitters.
- thathndude 5y agoSuch as Germany and other countries taking all nuclear off line. And for what reason? Historically, the concern has been what to do with the waste. But now, because we are investing in nuclear, we are finding that we can actually re-process the waste. And, at the worst, once rocket launch has become trivial, we can always send the waste off into the void (or sun).
- rocqua 5y agoIts easier to shoot stuff out of the solar system than to shoot it into the sun.
- CRConrad 5y ago
- reportingsjr 5y ago> Historically, the concern has been what to do with the waste. But now, because we are investing in nuclear, we are finding that we can actually re-process the waste. Reprocessing of nuclear waste is by no means a "new" finding. It's been known since nuclear power reactors have been a thing, but it is politically untenable. No country with nuclear capabilities is comfortable with other countries reprocessing spent fuel, as it is a portion of the process used to create material for nuclear weapons. As much as I want to love nuclear as an amazing source of energy, the cost and issues that arise with nuclear waste are massive and frequently discounted by people encouraging additional nuclear power reactors.
- rekoil 5y agoI'm not dismissing the issues with the waste. Co2 however is a much larger issue in the short term.
- thathndude 5y agoYeah. That’s all I’m trying to say. You said it far better than me.