Nuclear Power is the answer.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:nuclear power is a large part of solving the energy crisis in the U.S,if not the entire world.Contray to hysterical propaganda,it's much safer than most forms of energy, economical and safe for the environment.And with the discovery of the Thorium element,it's become even more feasible.It should be devolped as a major energy source right away.

Top | New | Old

Mesthartiya · M

Wrong wrong wrong. It's not safer than many forms of energy although it is admittedly much safer than burning up the planet with coal oil and gas.

The trouble is with nuclear, quite apart from the nuclear waste (which is deadly to all life) is that it's EXTREMELY expensive and takes years, if not decades, to build even one new station. We need cheap energy, we need clean energy and we need it yesterday.

Wind and solar are already cheaper than fossil fuels, and that is the inconvenient truth. They are the future.

DavidT8899 · 22-25, M

@Mesthartiya No wind and solar are NOT the future;it is well known that they are not nearly well developed enough to meet the world's needs.Yes,the storage of the waste is the major drawback ,but I can think of ways around it.Yes,the plants do take a long time to build and develop,and if it would have been started much earlier ,it would be well underway.Well,there's no time to start like the present!In the meantime,gas and oil will do just fine.

trollslayer · 46-50, M

@Mesthartiya I think a major component has to be efficiency and a re-think of how we use energy. Solar and wind are all well and good - but those gains are being minimized by waste.

As an example - my neighborhood used to be houses built in the 1950s. Exterior lighting consisted of a porch light, a light above the garage, and a flood light for the back yard. Now those houses are being replaced by new houses with landscape lighting on every plant, sting lights under the eaves, and enough exterior lighting to allow a person to sit anywhere in the yard and read at 3am. And it stays on all night.

And then there is the energy consumption of data servers needed for AI and cloud storage. Necessary?

MrBrownstone · 46-50, M

@Mesthartiya Stop using electronics and vehicles,problem solved.

ninalanyon · 61-69, T

there's nothing wrong with adding nuclear to the mix of generating capacity. But the lead time is long and the lifetime cost per unit of energy produced is higher than for renewables.

Solar and wind power also have the advantage that they can be introduced incrementally. You can start today and be up and running with a domestic installation by next week. Larger installations take longer but can also be turned on stage by stage. They can also be installed on the roofs and walls of commercial building so that no land is required.

About 25 km from where I live Oda, Norway's biggest online grocer, has a fulfillment centre. They covered the roof and south facing walls with solar panels:

Our new fulfillment center at Lier in Norway has installed 5 818 m2 solar panels on the roof and side walls producing energy of around 1 150 000 kWh every year. This will cover 30% of the buildings energy demand. This proudly ranks us as one of Norway's top 20 largest solar energy producers!

https://sustainablefuture.oda.com/fulfillment-centres

The nearest IKEA, about 15 kilometres further also has panels on the roof

Selskapet har også satt opp solceller på IKEA Slependen som ble montert høsten 2021 og begynte å avgi energi våren 2022.

– Når vi prater om solceller på taket, har det vært fra et klimaperspektiv. Vi har investert i solceller og vindparker over hele verden. Når strømprisene går opp, blir det en enda bedre investering.

The company has also installed solar cells at IKEA Slependen, which were installed in the fall of 2021 and began generating energy in the spring of 2022.

“When we talk about solar cells on the roof, it has been from a climate perspective. We have invested in solar cells and wind farms all over the world. When electricity prices go up, it becomes an even better investment.

https://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/stromkupp-for-ikea-har-spart-85-millioner/s/5-95-793350

Norway's biggest grocery distributor, ASKO, has 100 000 m2 of panels on its various buildings
https://asko.no/om-oss/fokus-pa-miljo/fornybar-energi/

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

First off nuclear power was literally developed as a PR stunt to justify nuclear weapons by showing you could use it for something other than vaporizing people.

So efficiency was not a priority .

Also Chernobyl, 3 mile island, Fukushima.

Stockpiles of waste that they invented new hieroglyphs for in case English doesn't exist in 1000 years.

Substantial modifications need to be made to standard grids to use nuclear power.

As others mentioned the long build times.

In countries like the US and Canada Hydro electric with wind and solar makes sense and vastly safer.

View 4 more replies »

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@DavidT8899 You claim that the technology is lacking and claim it is a fact with nothing to support that claim.

PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M

@DavidT8899 Geo thermal is even more pie in sky fancy.

Mesthartiya · M

@DavidT8899 Geothermal is an excellent option (Iceland, for example, has free hot water). The trouble is, you can't get it everywhere, so it's a non-starter for most countries.

trollslayer · 46-50, M

I can’t disagree.

Jokersswild · 22-25VIP

Two things: The U.S. knows if WWIII were to happen, having nuclear plants all over the country would be a disaster. When you're a country like the U.S. that seeks to instigate conflicts all of the world, you cannot afford this risk.

Moreover, U.S. energy companies have already invested in nuclear energy. It's not as easy as you think. It's very expensive and you need a team of experts to run a nuclear plant.