Penny · 46-50, F
@PoohSmasher well, we do need to charge our phones n stuff lol
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@PoohSmasher The physics of fission is terrifying. I wont go there. But imagine the sun suddenly blowing up in your back yard😷
pdockal · 56-60, M
Nuclear is the greenest energy (i work on a plant) possible
Closing one plant typically means 4 fossil fuel plants just to make similar amount of energy
Yes there is always the possibility of an accident & there is the spent fuel
New plants can run on spent fuel from older plants
Reactors take up less land the wind farms and solar arrays for the same power creation
Closing one plant typically means 4 fossil fuel plants just to make similar amount of energy
Yes there is always the possibility of an accident & there is the spent fuel
New plants can run on spent fuel from older plants
Reactors take up less land the wind farms and solar arrays for the same power creation
View 5 more replies »
pdockal · 56-60, M
@Penny
The US is recommisioning a nuclear plant that started decommissioning & is considering recommissioning one in NY that is being decommisioned
With AI & Data centers & pushing electric cars & cooktops we need nuclear
Wind isn't reliable
Solar is only part of the day
Hydro is good but it interferes with fish etc
No one type is perfect
The US is recommisioning a nuclear plant that started decommissioning & is considering recommissioning one in NY that is being decommisioned
With AI & Data centers & pushing electric cars & cooktops we need nuclear
Wind isn't reliable
Solar is only part of the day
Hydro is good but it interferes with fish etc
No one type is perfect
Elessar · 31-35, M
Turning off nuclear means relying more on fossil. Which means more pollution, more severe global warming, more wars and more radiations too (as a coal plant operating normally emits more radioactive particles than an NPP of equal output will in its entire lifetime)
Elessar · 31-35, M
@Penny They're insufficient and global warming is already a ticking bomb. Renewables cannot entirely replace fossils (as their output isn't constant) and a shortage of oil caused by the umpteenth war in the middle east will cause a major economic collapse if not even literal famine (wait 'till diesel shortages start hitting agriculture, combined with climate change).
We're accepting a certain disaster (mass starvation, recession, supply chain disruptions) in fear of one that, even if you deliberately tried to provoke it, would have infinitesimal chances of happening (see how many things were deliberately done wrong by the Soviets at the time of Chernobyl, the list of blunders is almost comical if it wasn't tragic)
We're accepting a certain disaster (mass starvation, recession, supply chain disruptions) in fear of one that, even if you deliberately tried to provoke it, would have infinitesimal chances of happening (see how many things were deliberately done wrong by the Soviets at the time of Chernobyl, the list of blunders is almost comical if it wasn't tragic)
jackrabbit10 · M
Northwest · M
We can decommission nuclear power/weapons, but only if the following happens:
1. World population is reduced to 1.5 Billion people.
2. United States, China, Russia, France, UK, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel agree to destroy their nuclear weapons and eliminate their armed forces, with exception of internal security (police).
3. Fully develop next generation, hybrid, modular fusion reactors.
Wholesome earth disappeared when the earth population exceeded 100 Million people. But 1,2 and 3 above, and especially 3, will go a long way toward making it wholesome in about 400 years.
1. World population is reduced to 1.5 Billion people.
2. United States, China, Russia, France, UK, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel agree to destroy their nuclear weapons and eliminate their armed forces, with exception of internal security (police).
3. Fully develop next generation, hybrid, modular fusion reactors.
Wholesome earth disappeared when the earth population exceeded 100 Million people. But 1,2 and 3 above, and especially 3, will go a long way toward making it wholesome in about 400 years.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
I don't minimise the cost of building it and of dealing with the spent fuel etc., but nuclear power is actually far safer and cleaner than "fossil fuel"; and solar and wind power are by no means as "green" as made out although their "fuels" are free.
Nuclear weapons of course are a different matter and we can all wish they had never been invented.
Ultimately "we" will run out of petroleum and coal even if we don't stop using them by policy. Then what will "we" do?
Nuclear weapons of course are a different matter and we can all wish they had never been invented.
Ultimately "we" will run out of petroleum and coal even if we don't stop using them by policy. Then what will "we" do?
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Penny I am afraid we cannot become very much less reliant on them without fairly significant changes to how we live.
We can and should use them more efficiently and less wastefully; but on the whole the world is using ever more electricity, and will continue to use more and more, however it is generated.
We can and should use them more efficiently and less wastefully; but on the whole the world is using ever more electricity, and will continue to use more and more, however it is generated.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M