i literally date a nuclear physicist. you are wrong. only wind beats out nuclear, and that isnt a global, reliable solution. solar also produces 50% more carbon. you must also consider the cost of transferring energy from region to region: there is a reason why solar isn't powering everything right now and the optimal spots are rare to find. the lack of nuclear power is mostly due to social pressure.
Okay. Maybe your nuclear physicist boyfriend is slightly biased in the nuclear vs renewables argument.
Because it's widely agreed upon and demonstrated throughout the past few decades how prohibitively expensive building and maintaining nuclear plants is. That's why we don't do it.
continue with your capitalist arguments of 'cost'. the human cost of replacing an entire infrastructure worth of solar panels will be more than nuclear.
We are not arguing among each other on how to use our money. I would not argue cost with you if that was what we were discussing, obviously.
This isn't an idealistic argument though, it's one of reality and current policies.
People, as in the government and the people who support certain policies, do not justify the insane expense and long term effort of nuclear for a system that in the minds of many can fail and harm millions. Versus actual renewable energy and investing into developing renewable technology.
You can be right in theory that a full dedication to development of nuclear power over 30 years would be better, but there are many arguments like that to be made that are detached from reality. China could do that, Russia is doing that. The US cannot with our constant trade between parties in power and lack of political will to continue the projects of past administrations that combat climate disaster.
It's both. There is valid fear about producing nuclear waste given human propensity to using it for war and tendency to fuck up and kill a lot of people on accident.
and other green facilities arent? lmao
No, moron. Comparatively they cost less.
i literally date a nuclear physicist. you are wrong. only wind beats out nuclear, and that isnt a global, reliable solution. solar also produces 50% more carbon. you must also consider the cost of transferring energy from region to region: there is a reason why solar isn't powering everything right now and the optimal spots are rare to find. the lack of nuclear power is mostly due to social pressure.
Okay. Maybe your nuclear physicist boyfriend is slightly biased in the nuclear vs renewables argument.
Because it's widely agreed upon and demonstrated throughout the past few decades how prohibitively expensive building and maintaining nuclear plants is. That's why we don't do it.
continue with your capitalist arguments of 'cost'. the human cost of replacing an entire infrastructure worth of solar panels will be more than nuclear.
We are not arguing among each other on how to use our money. I would not argue cost with you if that was what we were discussing, obviously.
This isn't an idealistic argument though, it's one of reality and current policies.
People, as in the government and the people who support certain policies, do not justify the insane expense and long term effort of nuclear for a system that in the minds of many can fail and harm millions. Versus actual renewable energy and investing into developing renewable technology.
You can be right in theory that a full dedication to development of nuclear power over 30 years would be better, but there are many arguments like that to be made that are detached from reality. China could do that, Russia is doing that. The US cannot with our constant trade between parties in power and lack of political will to continue the projects of past administrations that combat climate disaster.
It's not cost, it's political will (essentially, overcoming fear).
It's both. There is valid fear about producing nuclear waste given human propensity to using it for war and tendency to fuck up and kill a lot of people on accident.