I disagree. Next to hydropower (which is limited by geography) it has been the champion of non-fossil electricity generation so far. Still, the fossil fuel lobby is a powerful foe.
Simply put, we should invest in all non-fossil options, and where solar is geographically viable, it is great. In other places however, where peak electricity demand coincides with the coldest, darkest parts of the year dispatchable production is strictly necessary, which is where nuclear shines.
I would love to say that local consecuences are better than global ones but the “local” part may actually hide a quasi continental impact.
I live in Buenos Aires, more than 1500 km away from the big hydro power plants that lay on the parana river. Sometimes Brazil has to open or close their water gates because of droughts and the consecuences are felt here pretty hard. Waves of dead fish, invasions of sub tropical species, -3 m of water almost for a complete season, camalotes (hyacinths? We apparently locally call camalotes to some sort of aglomeration of plants that floats down the river. They usually carry snakesunder it, or so i have been told).
You build breeder reactors or use any of the non-uranium designs that were ignored by countries because they didn’t have weapons grade byproducts.
There are ways to deal with the waste, the problem is always politics/greed as it cuts into the profits. Same is true for other energy sources btw, with coal we happily shoot the waste into the atmosphere and pretend nothing’s wrong with that.
Unfortunately it is always the issue with greed and maximise the profits.
But that’s why I don’t really believe in the usefulness of Nuclear as a energy source.
The idea behind it is brilliant, but the way we use it is not. I am no expert in this field, just my personal opinion.
Might be, but I personally don’t feel comfortable it being stored. What if it leaks. Not my problem, as I will be dead by then, but still we will leave it for future generations.
I have seen the chaos building the Hinkley reactor and the costs, so my personal opinion there are cheaper ways of producing energy.
I disagree. Next to hydropower (which is limited by geography) it has been the champion of non-fossil electricity generation so far. Still, the fossil fuel lobby is a powerful foe.
Simply put, we should invest in all non-fossil options, and where solar is geographically viable, it is great. In other places however, where peak electricity demand coincides with the coldest, darkest parts of the year dispatchable production is strictly necessary, which is where nuclear shines.
There is also wind, wich works Reilly well in a lot oft those darker / colder countries
Hydropower has terrible environmental consequences. Emissions aren’t all that matters in terms of the environment.
I would love to say that local consecuences are better than global ones but the “local” part may actually hide a quasi continental impact.
I live in Buenos Aires, more than 1500 km away from the big hydro power plants that lay on the parana river. Sometimes Brazil has to open or close their water gates because of droughts and the consecuences are felt here pretty hard. Waves of dead fish, invasions of sub tropical species, -3 m of water almost for a complete season, camalotes (
hyacinths? We apparently locally call camalotes to some sort of aglomeration of plants that floats down the river. They usually carry snakesunder it, or so i have been told).Nevertheless, i personally prefer hydro than oil
Well but what to do with the waste?
I think in general it is a good source for energy, but unless we find a solution other than storing it somewhere in the earth, we should not use it.
You build breeder reactors or use any of the non-uranium designs that were ignored by countries because they didn’t have weapons grade byproducts.
There are ways to deal with the waste, the problem is always politics/greed as it cuts into the profits. Same is true for other energy sources btw, with coal we happily shoot the waste into the atmosphere and pretend nothing’s wrong with that.
Yeah 100% agree with you.
Unfortunately it is always the issue with greed and maximise the profits.
But that’s why I don’t really believe in the usefulness of Nuclear as a energy source. The idea behind it is brilliant, but the way we use it is not. I am no expert in this field, just my personal opinion.
Isn’t it basically a non-issue?
Afaik so little of it is generated that we can comfortably store it for thousands of years.
It can also be used in manufacturing later, like in making depleted uranium APFSDS penetrators (for your mom - sorry)
Also, I believe it’s literally harmless, isn’t it? If properly sealed of course. Afaik it just produces heat for a very, very long time…
Might be, but I personally don’t feel comfortable it being stored. What if it leaks. Not my problem, as I will be dead by then, but still we will leave it for future generations.
I have seen the chaos building the Hinkley reactor and the costs, so my personal opinion there are cheaper ways of producing energy.
I see what you did there.