In light of climate change I lean towards it being positive but I'm not very informed on this.

  • kristina [she/her]
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    look at the current labor costs. i posted it in another post in this thread.

    no, i'm saying that thinking purely about dollar signs is capitalistic when you consider the amount of good that comes from nuclear. other things outweigh dollar signs.

    and whats your point? you really think we're going to invest into wind and solar? that shit will cost even more to get our society to 100% carbon free energy than nuclear will. and when you consider land use, appropriations... things get way out of hand. youd need an area the size of a small state to power our current grid with solar or wind. not the case with nuclear. i'm not advocating for a 100% nuclear setup, as i think thats as unfeasible as a 100% renewables setup. but i think our society should be around 90% nuclear.

    also, solar and wind do produce a ton of toxic waste, so lets not act like its a victimless thing. solar produced around 250k metric tons of waste in 2016. that's for around 2% of the worlds energy, and by 2050 with current growth trends, it will be 78 million metric tonnes. id rather we focus on reprocessing nuclear waste, which we already know how to do, to get rid of it entirely within a decade or two.