Generally I think nuclear energy is useful and should be an important part of our energy infrastructure, however nuclear plants require a lot of time before they become carbon efficient, and we don't have all that much time. I think micro generation with solar and wind will be a much more important part of the decarbonization process personally.
this is wrong, solar takes more co2 than nuclear. wind is decent on co2 production but still requires fossil fuel mining because the blades are made out of plastics
im not gonna watch the video, but i can tell you no energy source can stop climate change because our governments are trash. nuclear is best out of all the options. google energy co2 production per kwh, land use, and animals dead per kwh
simply put: nuclear confines electricity production into a relatively small space. solar and wind require a lot of maintenance (including continual extraction of rare earth materials which arent unlimited and can be ablated) and take up a lot of land. they require way more laborers that could be doing other things
fission isnt the end goal either. fusion can use water to produce energy for billions of years, and in order to achieve fusion we need nuclear scientists to do things
also: bolivia was couped over lithium. we need to avoid mass use of lithium and other rare materials in order to not perpetuate imperialism over resource wars. with proper research into breeder reactors and small scale reactors, every country on the planet would have the resources to power themselves with nuclear
and thats not say that some solar or wind is a bad idea. those are currently the best options for rural, disconnected regions that would require a high cost to build a nuclear station in. but thats somewhat rare in western countries
Generally I think nuclear energy is useful and should be an important part of our energy infrastructure, however nuclear plants require a lot of time before they become carbon efficient, and we don't have all that much time. I think micro generation with solar and wind will be a much more important part of the decarbonization process personally.
this is wrong, solar takes more co2 than nuclear. wind is decent on co2 production but still requires fossil fuel mining because the blades are made out of plastics
Do you have a source for those claims? I think this video is very informative and provides a good overview of the pros and cons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k13jZ9qHJ5U
im not gonna watch the video, but i can tell you no energy source can stop climate change because our governments are trash. nuclear is best out of all the options. google energy co2 production per kwh, land use, and animals dead per kwh
simply put: nuclear confines electricity production into a relatively small space. solar and wind require a lot of maintenance (including continual extraction of rare earth materials which arent unlimited and can be ablated) and take up a lot of land. they require way more laborers that could be doing other things
fission isnt the end goal either. fusion can use water to produce energy for billions of years, and in order to achieve fusion we need nuclear scientists to do things
also: bolivia was couped over lithium. we need to avoid mass use of lithium and other rare materials in order to not perpetuate imperialism over resource wars. with proper research into breeder reactors and small scale reactors, every country on the planet would have the resources to power themselves with nuclear
and thats not say that some solar or wind is a bad idea. those are currently the best options for rural, disconnected regions that would require a high cost to build a nuclear station in. but thats somewhat rare in western countries