Pennsylvania children living near the sites at birth were two to three times more likely to be diagnosed with leukemia between ages 2 and 7, a new study finds.
It is if you consider the cost of the redundancy required for renewable energy to serve as base load once you cut oil, gass and coal out of the supply.
Nuclear can cover this base load until we develop better storage systems for large scale use.
If we had just built nuclear with the modern architecture developed in the 70’s onwards we’d be able to move away from fossile fuel FAAR more easily today, without any mjor disasters from the reactor technology from the 50’s.
If we had just moved ahead with solar heat and hot water, or even solar panels, back when President Carter was trying to encourage it, we would already be moved away from fossil fuels
My interest in renewables, in ecology, in recycling, was all from growing up with that. But how did we let fossil fuel companies take over the conversation, guide our choices down the road to their profits at our cost?
Many ways away from fossil fuel, both solar and nuclear would have been great options, but even with early solar, we would have had to use coal or gass for base load without nuclear was what u was trying to say.
How we let them was just by not standing up and not holding them accountable. That is still the issue today. They knew for DECADES and still is profiting with government subsidies everywhere. We need to push politicians away from lobbying and give them the support they need to be firm with the 1%.
You know that renewable Energy exists? In the time we would need to replace follils with nuclear we can insted build renewables and Storage capacitys and we would be way cheaper.
I’m mostly commenting on the fact that people are so concerned with the cost of nuclear plants yet they seem to not care about the cost of the damage that rampant fossil fuel production comes with. This has been the shitty argument for long before renewables became viable and nuclear would have been a much better stepping stone. There are also always going to be places where renewable energy won’t work or be enough.
Ok, fair enough. I also absolutely agree that we shaould have went for nuclear instead of coal, but now its to late and its faster to replace coal with renewables, than replacing it with nuclear.
but now its to late and its faster to replace coal with renewables, than replacing it with nuclear.
Nope, that’s bullshit. Nuclear development didn’t stop in the 80s and you can’t rely on renewables alone 'cos they’re not constant. You need a stable supply.
A single one maybe not, if we standardize and scale it might work. If solar and batteries keep getting cheaper, it might not be worth it, but the current problem is that new reactors are their own unique snowflakes, making it more expensive.
Except that nuclear is not economically viable.
I didn’t mention nuclear
You didnt but the person you replied to
Huh? France seems to be doing OK.
I should mention, that building new nuclear reactors is not financially a viable option.
It is if you consider the cost of the redundancy required for renewable energy to serve as base load once you cut oil, gass and coal out of the supply.
Nuclear can cover this base load until we develop better storage systems for large scale use.
If we had just built nuclear with the modern architecture developed in the 70’s onwards we’d be able to move away from fossile fuel FAAR more easily today, without any mjor disasters from the reactor technology from the 50’s.
If we had just moved ahead with solar heat and hot water, or even solar panels, back when President Carter was trying to encourage it, we would already be moved away from fossil fuels
My interest in renewables, in ecology, in recycling, was all from growing up with that. But how did we let fossil fuel companies take over the conversation, guide our choices down the road to their profits at our cost?
Many ways away from fossil fuel, both solar and nuclear would have been great options, but even with early solar, we would have had to use coal or gass for base load without nuclear was what u was trying to say.
How we let them was just by not standing up and not holding them accountable. That is still the issue today. They knew for DECADES and still is profiting with government subsidies everywhere. We need to push politicians away from lobbying and give them the support they need to be firm with the 1%.
Yea, better burn the world down instead.
You know that renewable Energy exists? In the time we would need to replace follils with nuclear we can insted build renewables and Storage capacitys and we would be way cheaper.
I’m mostly commenting on the fact that people are so concerned with the cost of nuclear plants yet they seem to not care about the cost of the damage that rampant fossil fuel production comes with. This has been the shitty argument for long before renewables became viable and nuclear would have been a much better stepping stone. There are also always going to be places where renewable energy won’t work or be enough.
It’s never going to be a single solution problem.
Ok, fair enough. I also absolutely agree that we shaould have went for nuclear instead of coal, but now its to late and its faster to replace coal with renewables, than replacing it with nuclear.
Nope, that’s bullshit. Nuclear development didn’t stop in the 80s and you can’t rely on renewables alone 'cos they’re not constant. You need a stable supply.
A single one maybe not, if we standardize and scale it might work. If solar and batteries keep getting cheaper, it might not be worth it, but the current problem is that new reactors are their own unique snowflakes, making it more expensive.
Give it the same subsidies Big Oil has then… and i’d rather have clean energy than “economically viable” dirty energy.