Scientists for Future, October 2021: Nuclear Energy is no technology for solving the Climate Crisis
-
The part that annoys me the most, is people will doom about huge swaths of humanity dying in the future due to climate change, then bemoan and rage against building nuclear plants today, thus solving solving a huge portion of the issue.
I just do not understand people's priorities, or if they really believe everything they say.
I think the big problem is our species went too far too fast, and it was all luck. Couple that with a species that is generally ignorant and unwilling to educate themselves, and we are left with global issues so convoluted that even our smartest struggle to manage them.
-
The part that annoys me the most, is people will doom about huge swaths of humanity dying in the future due to climate change, then bemoan and rage against building nuclear plants today, thus solving solving a huge portion of the issue.
I just do not understand people's priorities, or if they really believe everything they say.
Oh, by all means. Build nuclear to your heart's delight, but in the meantime we need to build wind, solar and water as well.
The part that annoys me the most are the ones that think that it is either or. It's not. It's as much as possible as fast as possible to replace as much fossil in total volume as possible.
-
Oh, by all means. Build nuclear to your heart's delight, but in the meantime we need to build wind, solar and water as well.
The part that annoys me the most are the ones that think that it is either or. It's not. It's as much as possible as fast as possible to replace as much fossil in total volume as possible.
Absolutely. Wind, solar, nuclear, grid-scale storage, and geothermal should all be invested and built up together. With stakes as high as they are, no one horse should be our only bet. And these all scale differently in different geographies, making each of them the best choice based on local conditions.
-
Oh, by all means. Build nuclear to your heart's delight, but in the meantime we need to build wind, solar and water as well.
The part that annoys me the most are the ones that think that it is either or. It's not. It's as much as possible as fast as possible to replace as much fossil in total volume as possible.
The amount of resources needed to build and maintain wind, solar, and hydro coupled with the massive environmental impacts make all three something that shouldn't be considered for long term "green" solutions.
-
The amount of resources needed to build and maintain wind, solar, and hydro coupled with the massive environmental impacts make all three something that shouldn't be considered for long term "green" solutions.
And nuclear cant possibly be built in time, so I guess we are screwed. Don't let perfect stand in the way of good. Doing nothing is not an option.
-
And nuclear cant possibly be built in time, so I guess we are screwed. Don't let perfect stand in the way of good. Doing nothing is not an option.
Building Wind, Solar, and Hydro is worse than doing nothing because of the massive environmental impacts they have.
We also have technologies like Modular Nuclear Reactors which can produce up to 300 MW of power per unit and be factory built.
Fact of the matter is we have the solution but ignoramus' who don't understand Science once again oppose human advancement and survival, without even considering sacrificing all of their energy dependent toys that Science built and are more dangerous than Nuclear Energy.
-
Building Wind, Solar, and Hydro is worse than doing nothing because of the massive environmental impacts they have.
We also have technologies like Modular Nuclear Reactors which can produce up to 300 MW of power per unit and be factory built.
Fact of the matter is we have the solution but ignoramus' who don't understand Science once again oppose human advancement and survival, without even considering sacrificing all of their energy dependent toys that Science built and are more dangerous than Nuclear Energy.
Which has yet to be realised. Of it is that fast and easy to set up I'm we will see loads of them going up in notime. Specially now in the US, given how the mindset of the current administration.
Not to mention China which invests heavily in anything able to produce a watt.
Nothing to hinder advancing nuclear in the world's 2 biggest economies! Problem solved.
-
I cannot even entertain this "debate" anymore because there isn't one. Nuclear is superior across the board, even when we include renewables like solar and wind, and I am tried of people not getting that while the world burns.
You don't think there's debate about nuclear waste and how and where to store it? Because those are my reservations about nuclear power.
-
Which has yet to be realised. Of it is that fast and easy to set up I'm we will see loads of them going up in notime. Specially now in the US, given how the mindset of the current administration.
Not to mention China which invests heavily in anything able to produce a watt.
Nothing to hinder advancing nuclear in the world's 2 biggest economies! Problem solved.
Whatever you say buddy.
-
You don't think there's debate about nuclear waste and how and where to store it? Because those are my reservations about nuclear power.
If those are your reservations about Nuclear power educate yourself on the process' taken with Nuclear waste, how much waste is produced per MW produced, and then compare MW produced vs impact for other energy sources.
-
You don't think there's debate about nuclear waste and how and where to store it? Because those are my reservations about nuclear power.
I think we've solved it several times but ignorance stops the implementation. France reprocesses, but other countries are scared to ship to be reprocessed. The US built Yucca Mountain then we failed to commission it.
-
System shared this topic onSystem shared this topic on
