3 ms·

1. Producing thousands of square kilometers of semiconductor grade silicon is anything but "simple" (or environmentally benign). 2. Literally no one died from

1. Producing thousands of square kilometers of semiconductor grade silicon is anything but "simple" (or environmentally benign). 2. Literally no one died from radiation at Fukushima. 3. "Nuclear fanboys" "fanboy" because it works at the necessary scale. 4. They "don't require mining"? Where do you think silicon comes from? Someone's a "fanboy" here, all right. Hint: it's not me.

ehfoeirjrjs 3y ago
You didn’t address any of the negative issues around nuclear but let me address your objections. We already mine, process, and use a lot of silicon, it’s not a big deal. People did die in Fukushima, and you ‘forgot’ to mention Chernobyl. And that’s 1 in 200 reactors globally melting down. You want more? What about the 160+ countries that don’t have nuclear? Not to mention the effects on the people that had to leave, or the life expectancy lost, economic costs of cleanup etc. I think that addresses nuclear is the only tech of ‘necessary scale’ which is a nonsense argument. Of course silicon requires mining, everything requires raw materials, the point is that it’s not a big deal. The fanboy comment is because you’re making polemic statements and ignoring the points that run counter to your point of view, which now seems to be a waste of everyone’s time. Solar, Wind, Hydrogen. Simple. Abundant. Largely ignored because of geopolitical power and control implicit in nuclear tech, and so folks will argue to their and other’s death to invest in nuclear over solar panels, windmills, and some hydrogen infrastructure. That’s fine, just don’t waste people’s time arguing it’s economics or ecological or quicker. “I like nuclear” and “my country likes guns and military power” is the rational point here.