you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 2 years ago (5 children)

He's against nuclear power, and that's the only thing I've ever disagreed with him on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The more I learn about nuclear the less it makes sense. It's a great source of energy but it's complex and expensive to maintain. Solar, wind, hydro and geothermal are simple and becoming cheaper by the day. It's hard to imagine a scenario in which we ever require more energy than those combined could provide.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago*

    Solar and Wind can't create a stable grid, you would need gas/coal backups.

    Hydro is fine but causes a lot of damage to river ecosystems and there is so much hydro you can build.

    Geothermal is probably best source of energy if you can get it but is only viable in few places.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    There's fusion on the work, so that alleviate some energy issues without nuclear energy and fossil fuels. And fusion might even have less problems, but I don't know much about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The problem is fusion is always 20 years away. It's essentially limitless energy if we can develop the technology and get it working. Also a lot of places have been moving away from nuclear.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    Nuclear ain't nuclear. Uranium fission plants allow for nuclear weapons proliferation. Thorium fission plants don't melt down, don't create radioactive waste, and even use uranium fission waste so there's less remaining. It can't be used for bombs though. Why do you think the great powers opted for uranium technology? Thorium fission is a viable option, but we should stop just saying "nuclear".

  • source
  • parent