4 ms·

Seems like a fair argument. What are the other options? Every counterargument I come across is either trying to solve today's problems with tomorrow's technolog

Seems like a fair argument. What are the other options? Every counterargument I come across is either trying to solve today's problems with tomorrow's technology or pays no regard to preserving or improving current quality of life.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
Safe, affordable and scaleable nuclear power is much more "tomorrow's technology" than renewable energy. The waste storage problem has not been solved. SMRs have issues and are still under development. Building plants usually takes decades. Specialized labor is in short supply. Nobody wants a reactor in their neighborhood. Putting reactors were governments could evaporate or are already riddled with corruption is ... unwise. Renewable energy is actually more on track to solve the carbon emissions problem than nuclear energy.
- elsonrodriguez 4y ago
  > Renewable energy is actually more on track to solve the carbon emissions problem than nuclear energy. "On track to solve" sounds like a forward looking statement, which goes back to my issue of people insisting on solving today's problem with tomorrow's technology. You simply can't put shovel in the ground today and build out a green solution to power manhattan, but you can start constructing a nuclear reactor with a proven design.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    You can, in fact, put shovel to ground, and shovel is to ground. But it takes time to build out a wholesale replacement for existing global infrastructure. Fortunately, it takes much, much less time and expense than replacing with nukes, and much, much less expense than continuing to operate existing infrastructure. We could have started this decades ago, and not be facing imminent catastrophe. Jimmy Carter (a former nuclear engineer) tried to get us on that road. The overwhelmingly biggest impediment to wholesale replacement for radically cheaper energy is social and structural inertia, chiefly apathy in the ruling class. Ignorance is the largest contributor.

bayesian_horse 4y ago

Safe, affordable and scaleable nuclear power is much more "tomorrow's technology" than renewable energy. The waste storage problem has not been solved. SMRs have issues and are still under development. Building plants usually takes decades. Specialized labor is in short supply. Nobody wants a reactor in their neighborhood. Putting reactors were governments could evaporate or are already riddled with corruption is ... unwise. Renewable energy is actually more on track to solve the carbon emissions problem than nuclear energy.

elsonrodriguez 4y ago
> Renewable energy is actually more on track to solve the carbon emissions problem than nuclear energy. "On track to solve" sounds like a forward looking statement, which goes back to my issue of people insisting on solving today's problem with tomorrow's technology. You simply can't put shovel in the ground today and build out a green solution to power manhattan, but you can start constructing a nuclear reactor with a proven design.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  You can, in fact, put shovel to ground, and shovel is to ground. But it takes time to build out a wholesale replacement for existing global infrastructure. Fortunately, it takes much, much less time and expense than replacing with nukes, and much, much less expense than continuing to operate existing infrastructure. We could have started this decades ago, and not be facing imminent catastrophe. Jimmy Carter (a former nuclear engineer) tried to get us on that road. The overwhelmingly biggest impediment to wholesale replacement for radically cheaper energy is social and structural inertia, chiefly apathy in the ruling class. Ignorance is the largest contributor.