producing enough energy consistently is the key figure of merit for electric generation infrastructure. Not a hand wavy optional nice to have fru fru thing.
Nuclear disasters are becoming incredibly rare and plus a nation like the US for instance has plenty of wide open and otherwise unused land. Ask the military. So even if there were a disaster, they could be pushed far away from cities.
The only disaster in recent memory required a tsunami to cause it and its effects are very minimal. Mostly it just cost a lot to clean up which again, is miles better than the radiation from coal and spills of oil and release of natural gas. The standard for which nuclear must meet is way higher than any other energy source when it comes to contamination.
I also didn’t say that mining of other types didn’t matter. Coal has always abused its workers. Oil is bought from nations with large human rights abuses procuring it. Meanwhile Uranium is often easily accessible to nations and doesn’t even need to be traded for.
Using nuclear energy is such a brain dead easy decision. Only barriers are upfront costs and public perception.
While I am inclined to agree: those upfront costs translate directly into time. Time that we don’t necessarily have. Solar and wind are deployable and much less complex of a facility to run overall. For me it isn’t about the best energy producer as it is whichever method gets us of fossil fuels the fastest.
Nuclear has long term capabilities and should be used, don’t get me wrong, but solar and wind are bridges, if you will, to when it can have all the time and money it needs.
Yes but that doesn’t have much to do with what I was speaking on. In the short term, we should be heavily investing in solar and wind but we shouldn’t have an anti-nuclear stance.
So when people come along with an educated view of nuclear energy and talk about disasters and what not, I’m just making sure they know that’s not the sticking point. Nuclear isn’t dangerous, it’s just expensive and takes time to build.
Nuclear needs to be invested in for the long term, that’s the clarification. Until then, it’s wind and solar all the way. However, I’m concerned that we could end up in a future where wind and solar rely on these massive batteries which aren’t much better for everyone involved unless we recycle.
I’m not a nuclear absolutist, it’s just uneducated to say that nuclear is bad and shouldn’t be supported. It has applications, just later in our future
Nuclear disasters vs not producing consistently due to nighttime.
I do find it interesting the method of resource extraction matters for solar components, but rarely any other minerals mined inhumanely for energy.
Like human rights policies are inherent to a solar panel.
producing enough energy consistently is the key figure of merit for electric generation infrastructure. Not a hand wavy optional nice to have fru fru thing.
Nuclear disasters are becoming incredibly rare and plus a nation like the US for instance has plenty of wide open and otherwise unused land. Ask the military. So even if there were a disaster, they could be pushed far away from cities.
The only disaster in recent memory required a tsunami to cause it and its effects are very minimal. Mostly it just cost a lot to clean up which again, is miles better than the radiation from coal and spills of oil and release of natural gas. The standard for which nuclear must meet is way higher than any other energy source when it comes to contamination.
I also didn’t say that mining of other types didn’t matter. Coal has always abused its workers. Oil is bought from nations with large human rights abuses procuring it. Meanwhile Uranium is often easily accessible to nations and doesn’t even need to be traded for.
Using nuclear energy is such a brain dead easy decision. Only barriers are upfront costs and public perception.
While I am inclined to agree: those upfront costs translate directly into time. Time that we don’t necessarily have. Solar and wind are deployable and much less complex of a facility to run overall. For me it isn’t about the best energy producer as it is whichever method gets us of fossil fuels the fastest.
Nuclear has long term capabilities and should be used, don’t get me wrong, but solar and wind are bridges, if you will, to when it can have all the time and money it needs.
Yes but that doesn’t have much to do with what I was speaking on. In the short term, we should be heavily investing in solar and wind but we shouldn’t have an anti-nuclear stance.
So when people come along with an educated view of nuclear energy and talk about disasters and what not, I’m just making sure they know that’s not the sticking point. Nuclear isn’t dangerous, it’s just expensive and takes time to build.
Nuclear needs to be invested in for the long term, that’s the clarification. Until then, it’s wind and solar all the way. However, I’m concerned that we could end up in a future where wind and solar rely on these massive batteries which aren’t much better for everyone involved unless we recycle.
I’m not a nuclear absolutist, it’s just uneducated to say that nuclear is bad and shouldn’t be supported. It has applications, just later in our future
Well no one in this chain of comments was saying nuclear is bad and shouldn’t be supported.
There is commentary on the kind of profit motives that result in things like: failed nuclear energy facilities and cobalt slave mining, though.