Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Way way off topic
Im really unaware, but why is nuclear energy not more of an option?
It seems it may still hold a stigma because of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl etc?
One would have to believe that technological advances in the last 40 years would surely see such accidents far less likely to happen no? There must be better ways of dealing with the radioactive waste than that long ago as well...no?
Or is it just so cost prohibitive to build now?
As burn this city points out, it is the same genre of enviro crazies screaming and yelling about climate change today, that virtually shut down the most efficient and environment friendly energy source ever known to man through the late 60's and into the 70's.
Because all these things are man made/developed, there will always be imperfections/accidents no matter what. However the planet itself would likely be way better off without the massive spike of fossil fuels the last 4 decades, that was needed to replace what just a handful of reactors can supply...no?
|
You’re not wrong and nuclear I think should be vastly more of our energy mix. But also people don’t realize what energy use also entails beyond power.
It means fertilizer. Roads. Plastics of all types. Fuel for jets cars, anything. It means textiles, manufacturing, metallics, construction materials... everything. it literally means everything in our current society’s fabric.
And nuclear doesn’t solve all of these other problems. It solves power. We can’t and don’t have nuclear reactor capability for planes or cars. We need technology to come a long long long way.