5 ms·

"We should recognize this fact and more actively work with them to further develop nuclear energy." No, we should not, at least not in regard to nuclear power.

"We should recognize this fact and more actively work with them to further develop nuclear energy." No, we should not, at least not in regard to nuclear power. We should not forget what happened not so recently ago. I do not want the waste problem go grow bigger. I do not want to pass closed out areas such as at Fukushima or Chernobyl to our kids and their kids. Yes, that might be just me :)

snowwrestler 12y ago
Energy production is a question of literally picking your poison. Do not make the mistake of ignoring the costs of the status quo simply because it is the status quo. When you choose against nuclear today, you are choosing for fuels like coal, natural gas, and hydropower. Each of those have their own environmental costs, which you are passing on to your kids every day right now.
- spacefight 12y ago
  No, I am not for fuels like coal, natural gas etc. I am pro solar and pro windpower. I didn't state that because the focus on the article/discussion is nuclear.
  - maaku 12y ago
    Ah, so you're pro coal and natual gas then. You do know that it is these source of energy that the grid is engineered to fall back on to even out fluctuations in supply? And that even if the grid was "100%" renewable, it'd end up supplying something like 60% of the aggregate energy from these fallback sources? You can't escape the choice. 100% renewable is a fantasy.
    - spacefight 12y ago
      "You can't escape the choice. 100% renewable is a fantasy." It might not be there yet, but it will eventually. How the grid is engineered now is not what it will be in 50y to come. And no, I am not pro coal and natural gas. Don't put words in my mouth, thank you.
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    I am also pro solar and wind. But the reality is that the globe, and the U.S., get only a couple percentage points of electrical generation from solar and wind right now. They are mostly future promise, and it's easy to be for that. Even deployed at large scale, solar and wind are not capable of providing consistent base load, or handling spikes. There must be an energy source that can scale generation on demand. Until we get fusion, your choices are nuclear, natural gas, coal, oil, or hydropower.
    - spacefight 12y ago
      That might be correct for the world and the US, but as said in other threads, e.g Germany has around 30% of reneweable energery right now, that is more than "a couple percentage points". Some other countries have even more. Hydro I am also fine with - of course only if pumped with net plus energy of wind and solar and not with cheap nuclear power at night.

snowwrestler 12y ago

Energy production is a question of literally picking your poison. Do not make the mistake of ignoring the costs of the status quo simply because it is the status quo. When you choose against nuclear today, you are choosing for fuels like coal, natural gas, and hydropower. Each of those have their own environmental costs, which you are passing on to your kids every day right now.

spacefight 12y ago
No, I am not for fuels like coal, natural gas etc. I am pro solar and pro windpower. I didn't state that because the focus on the article/discussion is nuclear.
- maaku 12y ago
  Ah, so you're pro coal and natual gas then. You do know that it is these source of energy that the grid is engineered to fall back on to even out fluctuations in supply? And that even if the grid was "100%" renewable, it'd end up supplying something like 60% of the aggregate energy from these fallback sources? You can't escape the choice. 100% renewable is a fantasy.
  - spacefight 12y ago
    "You can't escape the choice. 100% renewable is a fantasy." It might not be there yet, but it will eventually. How the grid is engineered now is not what it will be in 50y to come. And no, I am not pro coal and natural gas. Don't put words in my mouth, thank you.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  I am also pro solar and wind. But the reality is that the globe, and the U.S., get only a couple percentage points of electrical generation from solar and wind right now. They are mostly future promise, and it's easy to be for that. Even deployed at large scale, solar and wind are not capable of providing consistent base load, or handling spikes. There must be an energy source that can scale generation on demand. Until we get fusion, your choices are nuclear, natural gas, coal, oil, or hydropower.
  - spacefight 12y ago
    That might be correct for the world and the US, but as said in other threads, e.g Germany has around 30% of reneweable energery right now, that is more than "a couple percentage points". Some other countries have even more. Hydro I am also fine with - of course only if pumped with net plus energy of wind and solar and not with cheap nuclear power at night.