6 ms·

> The fact is the waste is negligible. Esspecially so when you consider the return of energy It doesn't matter how much energy it "returns". It doesn't make th

> The fact is the waste is negligible. Esspecially so when you consider the return of energy It doesn't matter how much energy it "returns". It doesn't make the waste less worse for generations. > Per square meter of real estate versus most viable renewables You can literally put solar on roofs of private buildings...if your local fossil/nuclear lobby allows it. I don't even get how this is relevant. Especially because of the issue with constantly running nuclear reactors in an old grid clogging it up so cheap renewable energy needs to be turned off. > but nuclear isn't something to be afraid of. Purely BECAUSE of technology. Those jumps you make here from unfunded claims about waste disposal over derailing into fossil, whitewashing of that waste and old school baseload myths make me thing you're the one who's afraid of technology.

tekknik 4y ago
> You can literally put solar on roofs of private buildings...if your local fossil/nuclear lobby allows it. What about the 16% of americans living in apartments? that’s just apartments, not counting condos or other units where you don’t have permission to install things on the roof. what do these people do for power?
- Krasnol 4y ago
  Are you trolling me? I didn't say this is supposed to be the only way of getting power. You can put solar everywhere. Not just on roofs and you might have heard about wind. That's a thing too.
  - bilekas 4y ago
    Don't take it as a slight. - We're only discussing here > I didn't say this is supposed to be the only way of getting power. Your previous comments do sign you up very much in favour of anything other than nuclear. > . Not just on roofs and you might have heard about wind. That's a thing too. It certainly is, but to my previous point of 'per square meter return' .. Are you planning to organise a turbine with the local people of each apartment block ? I sound facetious, but actually I'm not sure you know how energy is delivered. Renewable's are amazing, the more the merrier. But discarding nuclear over it's waste isn't a genuine argument. We've gotten better than the 60s/70/80 when old plants were built - granted through horrific experiences. That shouldn't stop us from pursuing cheap energy. Thanks to technology we know how to even automate where humans fail. We know how to distribute more efficiently. We also know how to use solar, wind and aqua. It will never be as efficient as splitting the atom though. Again I reiterate - Why not both ?
    - Krasnol 4y ago
      > Renewable's are amazing, the more the merrier. But discarding nuclear over it's waste isn't a genuine argument. How isn't it when it actually is in Germany? > We've gotten better than the 60s/70/80 when old plants were built How so when the waste from those reactors is still stored next to those reactors? > That shouldn't stop us from pursuing cheap energy. Nuclear is not cheap. > We also know how to use solar, wind and aqua. It will never be as efficient as splitting the atom though. It doesn't have to be as "efficient" as your steam engine with generations-waste-extra. It's cheap as hell and it's getting cheaper and better fast. Something you can't say about nuclear. A technology from the past. > Again I reiterate - Why not both ? Because: a) you didn't offer any solution for the waste b) you can spend every dollar only once c) we're right on the path to the new cold war....you should get rid of those rotting vulnerabilities and opt in for decentralised independence.
      - tekknik 4y ago
        > Nuclear is not cheap. It’s getting cheaper. The primary reason it’s not cheap currently is every reactor built is site specific. This will soon change with smaller reactors being built in factories then installed. > Something you can't say about nuclear. A technology from the past. This seems like an attack again on nuclear. Stars use nuclear reactions for energy, you’re alive because of a nuclear reaction. Why are you so quick to throw it out? And you still haven’t answered my question. What do these people do for power? I can’t put a wind turbine on the roof of my apartment anymore than a solar panel. And as your parent stated, there’s transmission and physical surface area concerns. Once we solve the energy problem, population growth is our next one. We can’t make anymore land, and people advocating for taking large swaths of land, or even ocean, are setting us up for future land use issues. Think beyond the immediate next step.
        Krasnol 4y ago
        > It’s getting cheaper. I'm looking forward to those sources on that bold claim. > This will soon change ...and I hope that claim was not based upon that wishful thinking but on actual facts which are valid today. > Stars use nuclear reactions for energy, you’re alive because of a nuclear reaction. Why are you so quick to throw it out? Nobody wants to turn off stars. This is a unnecessary derailment. And we're quick to throw it out because the money needs to go into renewable technology which can be deployed fast and cheap to face the current global crisis. > What do these people do for power? I can’t put a wind turbine on the roof of my apartment anymore than a solar panel What do these people do if they want to eat a hamburger? Do they all have a cow in their basement? I mean seriously...what is this? > Once we solve the energy problem, population growth is our next one.... I don't even...

tekknik 4y ago

> You can literally put solar on roofs of private buildings...if your local fossil/nuclear lobby allows it. What about the 16% of americans living in apartments? that’s just apartments, not counting condos or other units where you don’t have permission to install things on the roof. what do these people do for power?

Krasnol 4y ago
Are you trolling me? I didn't say this is supposed to be the only way of getting power. You can put solar everywhere. Not just on roofs and you might have heard about wind. That's a thing too.
- bilekas 4y ago
  Don't take it as a slight. - We're only discussing here > I didn't say this is supposed to be the only way of getting power. Your previous comments do sign you up very much in favour of anything other than nuclear. > . Not just on roofs and you might have heard about wind. That's a thing too. It certainly is, but to my previous point of 'per square meter return' .. Are you planning to organise a turbine with the local people of each apartment block ? I sound facetious, but actually I'm not sure you know how energy is delivered. Renewable's are amazing, the more the merrier. But discarding nuclear over it's waste isn't a genuine argument. We've gotten better than the 60s/70/80 when old plants were built - granted through horrific experiences. That shouldn't stop us from pursuing cheap energy. Thanks to technology we know how to even automate where humans fail. We know how to distribute more efficiently. We also know how to use solar, wind and aqua. It will never be as efficient as splitting the atom though. Again I reiterate - Why not both ?
  - Krasnol 4y ago
    > Renewable's are amazing, the more the merrier. But discarding nuclear over it's waste isn't a genuine argument. How isn't it when it actually is in Germany? > We've gotten better than the 60s/70/80 when old plants were built How so when the waste from those reactors is still stored next to those reactors? > That shouldn't stop us from pursuing cheap energy. Nuclear is not cheap. > We also know how to use solar, wind and aqua. It will never be as efficient as splitting the atom though. It doesn't have to be as "efficient" as your steam engine with generations-waste-extra. It's cheap as hell and it's getting cheaper and better fast. Something you can't say about nuclear. A technology from the past. > Again I reiterate - Why not both ? Because: a) you didn't offer any solution for the waste b) you can spend every dollar only once c) we're right on the path to the new cold war....you should get rid of those rotting vulnerabilities and opt in for decentralised independence.
    - tekknik 4y ago
      > Nuclear is not cheap. It’s getting cheaper. The primary reason it’s not cheap currently is every reactor built is site specific. This will soon change with smaller reactors being built in factories then installed. > Something you can't say about nuclear. A technology from the past. This seems like an attack again on nuclear. Stars use nuclear reactions for energy, you’re alive because of a nuclear reaction. Why are you so quick to throw it out? And you still haven’t answered my question. What do these people do for power? I can’t put a wind turbine on the roof of my apartment anymore than a solar panel. And as your parent stated, there’s transmission and physical surface area concerns. Once we solve the energy problem, population growth is our next one. We can’t make anymore land, and people advocating for taking large swaths of land, or even ocean, are setting us up for future land use issues. Think beyond the immediate next step.
      - Krasnol 4y ago
        > It’s getting cheaper. I'm looking forward to those sources on that bold claim. > This will soon change ...and I hope that claim was not based upon that wishful thinking but on actual facts which are valid today. > Stars use nuclear reactions for energy, you’re alive because of a nuclear reaction. Why are you so quick to throw it out? Nobody wants to turn off stars. This is a unnecessary derailment. And we're quick to throw it out because the money needs to go into renewable technology which can be deployed fast and cheap to face the current global crisis. > What do these people do for power? I can’t put a wind turbine on the roof of my apartment anymore than a solar panel What do these people do if they want to eat a hamburger? Do they all have a cow in their basement? I mean seriously...what is this? > Once we solve the energy problem, population growth is our next one.... I don't even...