3 ms·

> If you look at the numbers you'll see that nuclear energy is the safest and cleanest scalable energy source we've got. It's the energy source that has the few

by fhd2 13y ago

> If you look at the numbers you'll see that nuclear energy is the safest and cleanest scalable energy source we've got. It's the energy source that has the fewest deaths per MWH produced, it doesn't produce CO2, etc. etc. How about nuclear waste though? Where do we put that? I'm with you, it seems like humanity at large is hysterical beyond reasonable levels about radiation. However, it's not like it's completely harmless or unproblematic either. Maybe - just maybe - we should just use less energy, so that the renewables suffice. Just a crazy idea.

qwertyboy 13y ago
Actually, fossil fuel power plants release more radioactive waste than nuclear ones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Comparing_radioactive_waste_to_industrial_toxic_waste http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Comparing_radioac... Nuclear power really is a darn good solution to our energy problems, and is more feasible and entirely more humane than using less energy. Our growing energy demands are not just a result of us being spoiled, they are a direct result of our need to sustain more and more people. Cut down on the energy, and you quickly fund yourself cutting down on progress and on the welfare of the poor. Progress has created a lot of problems, but we can't really slow down in any significant way. Our only hope is to use our momentum to find solutions.
- fhd2 13y ago
  > Actually, fossil fuel power plants release more radioactive waste than nuclear ones. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Comparing_radioac.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Comparing_radioac.... That surprised me, but I didn't mean to say that fossil fuel power plants are a great alternative. > Progress has created a lot of problems, but we can't really slow down in any significant way. Our only hope is to use our momentum to find solutions. I'm not saying we should go back to not having energy at all. But it seems like there's quite a bit of potential for saving energy without seriously lowering anyone's quality of life. For instance, does 50% of the population have to commute in a big car every day? That doesn't sound like progress to me. The US's per capita energy consumption is more than twice that of the UK [1], is there really no way to save some of that? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_con...
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    For instance, does 50% of the population have to commute in a big car every day? If the cost of housing near cities is greater than the cost of transportation, then yes.

by fhd2 13y ago

qwertyboy 13y ago

Actually, fossil fuel power plants release more radioactive waste than nuclear ones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Comparing_radioactive_waste_to_industrial_toxic_waste http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Comparing_radioac... Nuclear power really is a darn good solution to our energy problems, and is more feasible and entirely more humane than using less energy. Our growing energy demands are not just a result of us being spoiled, they are a direct result of our need to sustain more and more people. Cut down on the energy, and you quickly fund yourself cutting down on progress and on the welfare of the poor. Progress has created a lot of problems, but we can't really slow down in any significant way. Our only hope is to use our momentum to find solutions.

fhd2 13y ago
> Actually, fossil fuel power plants release more radioactive waste than nuclear ones. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Comparing_radioac.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Comparing_radioac.... That surprised me, but I didn't mean to say that fossil fuel power plants are a great alternative. > Progress has created a lot of problems, but we can't really slow down in any significant way. Our only hope is to use our momentum to find solutions. I'm not saying we should go back to not having energy at all. But it seems like there's quite a bit of potential for saving energy without seriously lowering anyone's quality of life. For instance, does 50% of the population have to commute in a big car every day? That doesn't sound like progress to me. The US's per capita energy consumption is more than twice that of the UK [1], is there really no way to save some of that? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_con...
- nitrogen 13y ago
  For instance, does 50% of the population have to commute in a big car every day? If the cost of housing near cities is greater than the cost of transportation, then yes.