U.S. Seeks to Boost Nuclear Power After Decades of Inertia
www.nytimes.com
Measures moving through Congress to encourage new reactors are receiving broad bipartisan support, as lawmakers embrace a once-contentious technology.
  • MambabasaEnglish
    00·
    8 months ago

    Nuclear is bad. We need to invest in renewables. (Sidenote, phasing out nuclear for fossil energy like what Germany did is worse than nuclear.)

    If you say “well we need more energy to grow,” then I say we should degrow until renewables are sufficient for our needs.

    • stembolts
      00·
      8 months ago8 months ago

      Nuclear is bad.

      Well there we have it boys, the authority has spoken.

      Please do not search the deaths per kWh energy produced for each form of energy, or the amount of radioactivity produced.

      Nuclear is bad tho, so the death-rate and lower efficiency of other forms of energy must be accepted. /s

      • MambabasaEnglish
        00·
        8 months ago

        Obviously fossil fuels are worse asshole. It’s literally in the comment when I mentioned Germany.

          • MambabasaEnglish
            00·
            8 months ago

            That’s not the point. Only states can deploy nuclear energy. A city or province can’t do it. Only fossil fuels or renewables can guarantee local energy sovereignty. And since fossil fuels are bad, that leaves only renewables.

            • drknowledge
              00·
              8 months ago8 months ago

              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?

              • MambabasaEnglish
                00·
                8 months ago

                Pro-nuke energy is getting more and more indefensible after each disaster. May I remind you that literally nobody knows how to deal with long term storage of nuclear waste. No, dumping them in bunkers is not a long-term solution and never was sustainable.

                New developments in nuclear technology like with small modular reactors would produce more nuclear waste than conventional reactors. Not to mention that there isn’t enough uranium in the entire Earth for the whole world to shift to nuclear. It’s dangerous, expensive, and its waste is also dangerous and expensive.

                • drknowledge
                  00·
                  8 months 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.