4 ms·

The arguments around this are always weak and spurious. I've been at this too long to take the bait from any trolls who 'have it all figured out.' By no measur

The arguments around this are always weak and spurious. I've been at this too long to take the bait from any trolls who 'have it all figured out.' By no measure or justification is splitting the atom a good idea. There are few things more short sighted than arguing we should figure out what to do with nuclear waste because we haven't quite nailed solutions with ZERO waste. People who minimize the significance of both nuclear waste and absolutely inevitable nuclear disasters just aren't thinking with any foresight or vision about the core concepts of sustainability. But then that's it. A lot of people advancing Nuclear power aren't environmentalists at all. Learned that the hard way. No nukes!

steeve 4y ago
It's sad you didn't spend that same energy educating yourself about geological storage or Gen IV. Oh well.
stopping 4y ago
Nuclear is going to have to play a significant role if we want to get off fossil fuels. By all accounts nuclear is far safer and cleaner than fossil fuels (even amortizing the disasters), and so it is a suitable replacement if we can make it economically viable and publicly acceptable like it used to be. Solar and wind are already economically viable (even compared to fossil fuels), but still leave some key problems unsolved (e.g. baseline power at night). We might be able to solve this with batteries and other grid storage solutions, but these aren't yet scalable in the way that nuclear energy can be.
albertopv 4y ago
Considering coal power plants emit more radioactivity than nuclear ones [1], having 8500 coal plants instead of nuclear doesn't seem to be a great deal anyway. You could tell me even coal plants shouldn't exist, but they do, new ones are built, basically unopposed compared to nuclear even if they are far more dangerous. [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2022-003567_EN.html#:~:text=Studies%20show%20that%20ash%20from,than%20a%20nuclear%20power%20plant https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2022-00356....

steeve 4y ago

It's sad you didn't spend that same energy educating yourself about geological storage or Gen IV. Oh well.

stopping 4y ago

Nuclear is going to have to play a significant role if we want to get off fossil fuels. By all accounts nuclear is far safer and cleaner than fossil fuels (even amortizing the disasters), and so it is a suitable replacement if we can make it economically viable and publicly acceptable like it used to be. Solar and wind are already economically viable (even compared to fossil fuels), but still leave some key problems unsolved (e.g. baseline power at night). We might be able to solve this with batteries and other grid storage solutions, but these aren't yet scalable in the way that nuclear energy can be.

albertopv 4y ago

Considering coal power plants emit more radioactivity than nuclear ones [1], having 8500 coal plants instead of nuclear doesn't seem to be a great deal anyway. You could tell me even coal plants shouldn't exist, but they do, new ones are built, basically unopposed compared to nuclear even if they are far more dangerous. [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2022-003567_EN.html#:~:text=Studies%20show%20that%20ash%20from,than%20a%20nuclear%20power%20plant https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2022-00356....