10 ms·
Events like this happen and yet no on wants to adopt nuclear energy. Instead the narrative is natural gas supplemented by wind, solar, and batteries all of whic
by deevolution 5y ago
Events like this happen and yet no on wants to adopt nuclear energy. Instead the narrative is natural gas supplemented by wind, solar, and batteries all of which cause more environmental destruction. Even in catastrophic nuclear failures, nature inevitably reclaims the land. On the other hand Solar panels and wind farms decimate local wildlife populations and require large amounts of land use - not to mention the mining operations.
- failwhaleshark 5y ago1. Nuclear isn't a panacea. Been There, Done That, Bought The T-Shirt. It will never happen. There's no need to risk a Chernobyl if you don't build it in the first place; shruggingly-accepting it is absurd. 2. Solar and wind are better than FF and nuclear when there is sufficient storage (PES, etc.). Prove that solar does anything to wildlife. Seriously, where is this FUD coming from? 3. Batteries aren't a power source, they're a means of storage.
- uminer6ugr4 5y agoYou realize if we used only nuclear power we'd have to mine an absolute crap ton of U right? Only a few percent is even usable, U235, so imagine the mega scale strip mining required. I'm not going to go into why nuclear is dead, but I think it's interesting that so many people think it's so easy to build more nuclear. There's a lot of things to scale of we wanted to do that, and right now the industry is scaling renewables, which isn't going to stop anytime soon, so if you want more nuclear I suggest you become a billionaire and build your own.