nuclear > everything else. lithium is the devil, bolivia was couped due to lithium. if we develop our nuclear physics program we'll have the least exploitative energy source on the planet in regards to upkeep and resources, while having very safe current gen nuclear reactors until we get nuclear fusion.
green libs love themselves some solar energy. yeah sure ill love to see how 'renewable' and 'safe for the environment' these things are when you have to replace the panels due to ablation every year or so at plants across the country.
take a look at china and france's current gen reactors. afaik theyve yet to score above a 2 on the nuclear event scale in the past 30 years. meaning that theyve only had very minor issues that were easily fixed. those two countries are currently the gold standard for nuclear tech.
The best argument I've heard against expanding nuclear power in the US is that there's no way we'd do it as competently as those countries, and it's the sort of thing you really need to do well or not at all.
sure, just because our government is dysfunctional doesnt mean it isnt the moral choice. also, solar power creates a lot of waste so if youre doing that argument hydro and wind are the way to go.
Haven't you heard that nuclear just isn't a viable practice solution for current climate crisis, considering the breakthroughs in the renewables? Shit, I would pull up some good chapo posts on the topic, but, you know...
That's as far as I understood the argument, whilst LFTR and similar generation reactors are great they're still 20-30 years from reaching first power whilst efficiency's of solar/wind and other renewable are at such a point that's its worth just sprinting them now to help the problem.
nuclear > everything else. lithium is the devil, bolivia was couped due to lithium. if we develop our nuclear physics program we'll have the least exploitative energy source on the planet in regards to upkeep and resources, while having very safe current gen nuclear reactors until we get nuclear fusion.
green libs love themselves some solar energy. yeah sure ill love to see how 'renewable' and 'safe for the environment' these things are when you have to replace the panels due to ablation every year or so at plants across the country.
Nuclear power has the fewest deaths per kilowatt hour of any energy source and the choice to use anything else is a choice measured in blood.
deleted by creator
2/3rds of all Nuclear Reactor accidents occurred in the U.S.
Nuclear reactors blowing up is a CIA op, change my mind.
CIA's oil investors bombing nuclear reactors? Say it aint so
take a look at china and france's current gen reactors. afaik theyve yet to score above a 2 on the nuclear event scale in the past 30 years. meaning that theyve only had very minor issues that were easily fixed. those two countries are currently the gold standard for nuclear tech.
The best argument I've heard against expanding nuclear power in the US is that there's no way we'd do it as competently as those countries, and it's the sort of thing you really need to do well or not at all.
sure, just because our government is dysfunctional doesnt mean it isnt the moral choice. also, solar power creates a lot of waste so if youre doing that argument hydro and wind are the way to go.
Haven't you heard that nuclear just isn't a viable practice solution for current climate crisis, considering the breakthroughs in the renewables? Shit, I would pull up some good chapo posts on the topic, but, you know...
That's as far as I understood the argument, whilst LFTR and similar generation reactors are great they're still 20-30 years from reaching first power whilst efficiency's of solar/wind and other renewable are at such a point that's its worth just sprinting them now to help the problem.
id reply but page updates are deleting my text lol
deleted by creator
ill have to ask my nerds for their consensus on this one