3 ms·

Nuclear is probably the safest form of energy possible next to deep geothermal, if you include the damage done to humans involved in the production of solar pan

Nuclear is probably the safest form of energy possible next to deep geothermal, if you include the damage done to humans involved in the production of solar panels. Germany is choosing to regress itself into a pre industrial society with no upside.

stareatgoats 4y ago
Well it is "probably safe" until some even greater catastrophe then the ones hitherto occurs, then it isn't probable any more. Nuclear has that potential, and if you deny that then you are either ill informed or dishonest. Deep geothermal is what will probably totally obliterate any lingering doubts about the blessings of nuclear, so I'm fairly optimistic about where this is heading.
- koverstreet 4y ago
  Calling people names for disagreeing with you generally doesn't fly here, you need to justify your arguments. Nuclear has gotten safer over time, as the failure modes have become better understood, and it's always been considerably safer than fossil fuels. There simply isn't any justification for your wild fear mongering.
  - stareatgoats 4y ago
    Well, agree that name calling is not acceptable. But you know, another thing that doesn't fly is mischaracterizing someone's comments. If you mean my "ill informed or dishonest" remark qualifies, then I will dispute that. But I believe "wild fear mongering" fits the bill, but that wasn't my comment however.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  I think we have already faced the worst possible failure mode with Tsernobyl. That is the fuel going up in the air with burning material. Can't get any worse than that, and compared to produced electricity it resulted in not that many deaths.
scantis 4y ago
It is still incompatible to our current system. Allthough there are very efficient solution to recycle nuclear garbage and bring it on faster decay chains, this process is messy and nobody wants to really touch it. We have the capability, but there is little money to be made and it comes with insane liabilities. Politicians would need to create a robust and efficient framework, but it is more lucrative to move the waste around with ever exploding costs and fear monger towards the public. We will never see this clearly. Oil can be bought by the barrel and moved around the globe quite easily, while the carbon footprint can be blamed on any of the producer or you the customer. Wind energy and solar can be injected without much care and little regulation. Both can make a ton of money and need little care. A nuclear driven hydrogen and methanol economy on the other hand, that disposes of the waste with complicated processes, is expensive, complicated, thankless and nearly impossible. Especially with an ever changing political framework.

stareatgoats 4y ago

Well it is "probably safe" until some even greater catastrophe then the ones hitherto occurs, then it isn't probable any more. Nuclear has that potential, and if you deny that then you are either ill informed or dishonest. Deep geothermal is what will probably totally obliterate any lingering doubts about the blessings of nuclear, so I'm fairly optimistic about where this is heading.

koverstreet 4y ago
Calling people names for disagreeing with you generally doesn't fly here, you need to justify your arguments. Nuclear has gotten safer over time, as the failure modes have become better understood, and it's always been considerably safer than fossil fuels. There simply isn't any justification for your wild fear mongering.
- stareatgoats 4y ago
  Well, agree that name calling is not acceptable. But you know, another thing that doesn't fly is mischaracterizing someone's comments. If you mean my "ill informed or dishonest" remark qualifies, then I will dispute that. But I believe "wild fear mongering" fits the bill, but that wasn't my comment however.
Ekaros 4y ago
I think we have already faced the worst possible failure mode with Tsernobyl. That is the fuel going up in the air with burning material. Can't get any worse than that, and compared to produced electricity it resulted in not that many deaths.

scantis 4y ago

It is still incompatible to our current system. Allthough there are very efficient solution to recycle nuclear garbage and bring it on faster decay chains, this process is messy and nobody wants to really touch it. We have the capability, but there is little money to be made and it comes with insane liabilities. Politicians would need to create a robust and efficient framework, but it is more lucrative to move the waste around with ever exploding costs and fear monger towards the public. We will never see this clearly. Oil can be bought by the barrel and moved around the globe quite easily, while the carbon footprint can be blamed on any of the producer or you the customer. Wind energy and solar can be injected without much care and little regulation. Both can make a ton of money and need little care. A nuclear driven hydrogen and methanol economy on the other hand, that disposes of the waste with complicated processes, is expensive, complicated, thankless and nearly impossible. Especially with an ever changing political framework.