drknowledge @ drknowledge @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

8

Joined

2 yr. ago

Soley relying on renewables to get us off fossil fuels is taking, and will continue to take far too long. I'm sure you're aware based on how much climate scientists have been sounding the alarm (even more so recently).

It's dangerous, expensive, and its waste is also dangerous and expensive. That fear only works in the favor of the fossil fuels industry. They love pushing this notion. https://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/Nuclear_Fear_2021.pdf

For example, the leaks at the Hanford site are from military weapons research and production, not from the power plant.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-73.pdf

But things like this get conflated with power production.

nobody knows how to deal with long term storage of nuclear waste Another ignorant statement. You keep using absolutes.

Not to mention that there isn't enough uranium in the entire Earth for the whole world to shift to nuclear. Again, stating things as factually inaccurate absolutes. It's more than capable of supplementing base loads while renewables continue to scale. This has never been an "only nuclear" vs "only renewables" argument.

Breeder reactors would massively reduce waste.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/fast-reactors-provide-sustainable-nuclear-power-thousands-years

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-01986-w

There's way more going on that you're obviously completely unaware of and are sticking to your preexisting conclusions no matter what is presented to you.

I used to hold very similar opinions in my 20s. It's amazing what education can do. I do hope your views soften a bit in the near future as we're gonna need everything we've got to get off of fossil fuels.

Only states can deploy nuclear energy.

So what? Your point is an extremely narrow view. You should have been more clear in your initial comment. It's not renewables OR nuclear only. Investment can be made in both.

Some other snippets from a couple of your other comments:

Nuclear is bad.

For my own country,

A city or province can't do it. Only fossil fuels or renewables can guarantee local energy sovereignty.

So let me get this straight. You ignorantly declare "Nuclear is bad" in response to an article about the United States expanding its nuclear production capacity. In another comment further down, a user suggested you explain more of your reasoning. There you mention "For your own country", which I can only conclude is not the US, and you appear confused/upset as to why others are arguing with you?

Wind IS acceptable. Read the last paragraph. The first part of the comment is merely addressing the people that suggest solar only as it's the only source with less attributed deaths per terawatt hour. I'm also partial to the Norwegian hydro model.

Hydro and wind kill more people per terawatt hour. That leaves solar (and possibly tidal as that development ramps up). Putting all your eggs in just one form of renewables (solar) would be an insane risk. Base loads need to be addressed in order to phase out the fossil fuels.

There are more options with modern reactor designs. Small modular reactors can be built and brought online cheaper and faster than previous designs. That would allow a faster ROI (reducing fossil fuel usage faster).

Solar, wind, tidal and nuclear should be scaled simultaneously to reach our goals and not think it's just one or the other.

France just brought an older reactor back online using recycled fuel https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/French-reactor-using-full-core-of-recycled-uranium

Nuclear is safer per terawatt hour than hydro and wind. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

allegedly

You're spare parts bud.