I mean better nuclear than burning coal. I don’t get why nuclear has such a bad wrap, it’s a reliable zero emissions way to produce power, takes up way less space than a solar or wind farm and the only down side is the nuclear waste produced. Its not the best option sure, but far from the worst! Lots of fear mongering about melt downs, but if your gonna cry about that u better not advocate for electric cars because God forbid those batteries can light up too once in a blue moon! Hell just a few weeks ago an electric car and seperate incident an elec bus burnt down a set of toll booths not too far from me. Then then one lit up again while on the roll back. Can’t remember the last nuclear melt down around here though ;)
Far more expensive, it’s centralized and therefore a war target (good luck trying to destroy 100 million solar installations on 100 million different houses instead) and the source of fuel rods for Europe is currently a sanctioned country that is running amok in Ukraine.
It’s useful to establish a base of energy when Renewables don’t produce enough and there are no other decentralized options, but otherwise, it should not be considered IMO.
Article pitches this as either/or when it’s very obviously going to be more of one producing more of the other.
I do get tired of the “nuclear energy is better than climate change!” as though our voracious demand for cheap energy will neatly cap itself the moment we get X new nuclear facilities online.
But I also get tired of hearing people insist that nuclear energy is on the horizon, when nobody is building new plants. This is a vaporware technology. It isn’t in the production pipeline and there’s no reason to believe posting your Nuke-Love online will change that
Nuclear shills out in force in the comments 😬
I mean better nuclear than burning coal. I don’t get why nuclear has such a bad wrap, it’s a reliable zero emissions way to produce power, takes up way less space than a solar or wind farm and the only down side is the nuclear waste produced. Its not the best option sure, but far from the worst! Lots of fear mongering about melt downs, but if your gonna cry about that u better not advocate for electric cars because God forbid those batteries can light up too once in a blue moon! Hell just a few weeks ago an electric car and seperate incident an elec bus burnt down a set of toll booths not too far from me. Then then one lit up again while on the roll back. Can’t remember the last nuclear melt down around here though ;)
But still worse than renewables.
Far more expensive, it’s centralized and therefore a war target (good luck trying to destroy 100 million solar installations on 100 million different houses instead) and the source of fuel rods for Europe is currently a sanctioned country that is running amok in Ukraine.
It’s useful to establish a base of energy when Renewables don’t produce enough and there are no other decentralized options, but otherwise, it should not be considered IMO.
Article pitches this as either/or when it’s very obviously going to be more of one producing more of the other.
I do get tired of the “nuclear energy is better than climate change!” as though our voracious demand for cheap energy will neatly cap itself the moment we get X new nuclear facilities online.
But I also get tired of hearing people insist that nuclear energy is on the horizon, when nobody is building new plants. This is a vaporware technology. It isn’t in the production pipeline and there’s no reason to believe posting your Nuke-Love online will change that
https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-reactor-database/summary
Excuse me, nobody outside of China is building new reactors
And India. So you know, half of all people.
Building 5x the number of fossil fuel plants as nuclear plants.
If you believe nuclear is preventing climate change, you need to square these figures
That’s not quite “vaporware” anymore, but I agree that the other 5/6ths should be prevented as well.