Solar only works when there’s sun, fusil fuels kill the planet and give you all sorts of health issues including cancer.
I agree it’s important greatly reduce consumption and build car independent infrastructure. But nuclear power is still the most reliable and least harmful source of power and if it wasn’t for the disinformation and irrational nuclear phobia a considerable part of the energy problems would be improved.
A combination of various renewables (solar, wind, hydro in its various forms), combined with sustainable high density storage and a global network of power delivery with multiple redundancies is the solution.
But it will obviously not happen as it isn’t in shareholders’ interest to have sustainable, cheap energy.
Nuclear is the least bad fossil fuel. It is infinitely better than coal and still miles better than gas/oil. That doesn’t make it good, and in no way better than renewables. Nuclear is a fossil fuel.
Also shut the fuck up with that “only works if there is sun” argument. Have you looked outside at least once? All live on earth is fueled by plants “that only work if there is sun”. There is enough sun!
most reliable
Solar+wind+batteries are cheaper by at least a factor of 10. They are also decentralized so more resistant to disasters and attacks.
Nuclear is the slowest power source to adapt to new demand and spikes. It is also a single point of failure for a whole region that can take 10+ years to replace.
least harmful
How many places on earth have become uninhabitable because of solar power? Sure there are toxic mines where rare earths that are needed for solar panels and batteries are mined, but what do you think is needed to build a nuclear power plant? And where do you think uranium comes from?
Nuclear is not the (near) future of terrestrial power production. That is not disinformation, that is economics.
That would exclude coal. But yes fossil fuels are generally regarded to be carbon based.
I used the term to describe fuels extracted from the earth that will eventually run out as they are not renewable (on a human timescale). I made no claim about harmfulness there, just ranking the types of fossil fuels by badness while including nuclear.
About safety: Nuclear reactors don’t really have many problems, there were literally 2 incidents in the last…idk 100 years lol, 1 was because of a tsunami, the other was because some stupid idiot thought “okay let’s put unprepared people to do stuff to the reactor” and also said reactor wasn’t as secure as modern reactors.
Nuclear energy overall do less harm than fossil ever did and some want to switch from uranium to torium which is more safe, solar energy isn’t that great, low efficency, high maintance and take up a lot of space, moreover, the discussion about plants is stupid because it does not mention the amount of electricity used daily by millions of human.
Currently, I would say that hydroelectric power is the most worthwhile renewable energy source, followed by wind power.
In any case, we are talking about using more nuclear energy, not just nuclear energy, so the argument of decentralisation does not hold much water.
(I would add that nuclear power stations are much smaller nowadays, but more are being built, see France).
I’m not against using nuclear energy, but we should focus even more on the safety aspect, especially long-term. It costs a lot to build and improve the reactors and safety mechanisms, and when money dictates everything, things are going to get done with the minimum cost somewhere, which leaves a lot of room for errors.
We can’t exactly prevent earthquakes or tsunamis and whatnot, and global warming is even making sure the weather conditions are going to cause more extreme storms and all that… but the biggest issue is money religion, basically. At this rate there will be reactors build the cheapest way possible, and even the people hired to be responsible will be chosen what’s cheapest… Not to mention all the possibilities to save money in storing the nuclear waste.
People are already starting to forget a bit too much about how dangerous nuclear radiation is since even Fukushima wasn’t that bad in the end, and at this rate we’re not going to stop rampant capitalism either, before something can go terribly wrong…
I guess the point is, we’re really, really stupid, and nuclear energy combined with stupidity has quite the infinite potential for disasters. Which we should consider a lot more for things to stay safe in the future too
What other realistic alternatives do you suggest?
Solar only works when there’s sun, fusil fuels kill the planet and give you all sorts of health issues including cancer.
I agree it’s important greatly reduce consumption and build car independent infrastructure. But nuclear power is still the most reliable and least harmful source of power and if it wasn’t for the disinformation and irrational nuclear phobia a considerable part of the energy problems would be improved.
A combination of various renewables (solar, wind, hydro in its various forms), combined with sustainable high density storage and a global network of power delivery with multiple redundancies is the solution.
But it will obviously not happen as it isn’t in shareholders’ interest to have sustainable, cheap energy.
Nuclear is the least bad fossil fuel. It is infinitely better than coal and still miles better than gas/oil. That doesn’t make it good, and in no way better than renewables. Nuclear is a fossil fuel.
Also shut the fuck up with that “only works if there is sun” argument. Have you looked outside at least once? All live on earth is fueled by plants “that only work if there is sun”. There is enough sun!
Solar+wind+batteries are cheaper by at least a factor of 10. They are also decentralized so more resistant to disasters and attacks. Nuclear is the slowest power source to adapt to new demand and spikes. It is also a single point of failure for a whole region that can take 10+ years to replace.
How many places on earth have become uninhabitable because of solar power? Sure there are toxic mines where rare earths that are needed for solar panels and batteries are mined, but what do you think is needed to build a nuclear power plant? And where do you think uranium comes from?
Nuclear is not the (near) future of terrestrial power production. That is not disinformation, that is economics.
Can you tell me which animals were made of uranium? I’m dying to know.
I assume you mean “non-renewable” but nothing is renewable on a sufficient time scale.
And if your argument is mining…well, re-read the end of your own message.
one of us is confused on definitions. i could have sworn fossil fuels were petroleum derivatives, not fuels with harmful byproducts.
That would exclude coal. But yes fossil fuels are generally regarded to be carbon based.
I used the term to describe fuels extracted from the earth that will eventually run out as they are not renewable (on a human timescale). I made no claim about harmfulness there, just ranking the types of fossil fuels by badness while including nuclear.
aww i love it when i’m not the only confused one
About safety: Nuclear reactors don’t really have many problems, there were literally 2 incidents in the last…idk 100 years lol, 1 was because of a tsunami, the other was because some stupid idiot thought “okay let’s put unprepared people to do stuff to the reactor” and also said reactor wasn’t as secure as modern reactors.
Nuclear energy overall do less harm than fossil ever did and some want to switch from uranium to torium which is more safe, solar energy isn’t that great, low efficency, high maintance and take up a lot of space, moreover, the discussion about plants is stupid because it does not mention the amount of electricity used daily by millions of human. Currently, I would say that hydroelectric power is the most worthwhile renewable energy source, followed by wind power.
In any case, we are talking about using more nuclear energy, not just nuclear energy, so the argument of decentralisation does not hold much water. (I would add that nuclear power stations are much smaller nowadays, but more are being built, see France).
I’m not against using nuclear energy, but we should focus even more on the safety aspect, especially long-term. It costs a lot to build and improve the reactors and safety mechanisms, and when money dictates everything, things are going to get done with the minimum cost somewhere, which leaves a lot of room for errors.
We can’t exactly prevent earthquakes or tsunamis and whatnot, and global warming is even making sure the weather conditions are going to cause more extreme storms and all that… but the biggest issue is money religion, basically. At this rate there will be reactors build the cheapest way possible, and even the people hired to be responsible will be chosen what’s cheapest… Not to mention all the possibilities to save money in storing the nuclear waste.
People are already starting to forget a bit too much about how dangerous nuclear radiation is since even Fukushima wasn’t that bad in the end, and at this rate we’re not going to stop rampant capitalism either, before something can go terribly wrong…
I guess the point is, we’re really, really stupid, and nuclear energy combined with stupidity has quite the infinite potential for disasters. Which we should consider a lot more for things to stay safe in the future too
For large values of 2, yes. There are 9 listed here, and more if you include those that didn’t cause any deaths (such as Three Mile Island).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
Have you met people? These will both happen again. You cannot trust people.