Wow. This post has been reshared numerous timesAre you talking about the post or the tweet?
Chen Levy - 2 minutes agoyeah. nuclear's much less hazardous with much less carbon footprint to building and decommissioning nuclear than wind turbines.
We should take into account the intermittent nature of wind and solar, as well as the carbon footprint and hazardous materials required for building and decommissioning them after their end of life. Unfortunately these problems makes solar and wind insufficient to tackle #climate-change.
The only viable alternative to #fossil-fuel right now is #nuclear.
Please check your facts.
enough getting side-tracked n trolled n derailed from a positive piece about wind power to a nuclear trolling. lol
They're still arguing about how to store it and it's building up at nuclear plants.Germany decided to decide around the year 2042 where to definitely dispose nuclear waste, as for now they have found none ..
2017 gibt es noch in keinem der 30 Staaten, die Kernenergie nutzen, ein geeignetes Endlager für hochaktiven Atommüll, obwohl entsprechende Planungen und Vorarbeiten in vielen Ländern seit etwa vier Jahrzehnten laufen. Stattdessen wird wieder aufbereitet oder direkt zwischengelagert.
We made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons, as if all things nuclear were evil. I think that’s as big a mistake as if you lumped nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons.An accident in a nuclear power is nothing like an explosion of a nuclear weapon. Depending on the technology and implementation it can be more or less hazardous, but it is typically less dangerous than an accident in a chemical plant.
former Director of Greenpeace International
Nuclear is ... a finite source...In the past we thought that we can use only the fairly rare Uranium 235 for nuclear power. Even with that there are the stockpile of nuclear weapons that we can destroy and make fuel from (see the Killo-tons to Killo-watts program on the '90s), plus we can and should also reprocess used fuel as done in France. From all of that we have fuel for centuries without the need to mine any new Uranium.
Nuclear discussion ... is influenced by that industry...It is also influenced by environmental minded people who after careful examination of the subject matter came to the conclusion that without this there can be no solution for climate change.
Nuclear power is pretty much a dead issue...Not at all. China is in the process of building 400 new reactors. There is a resurgence in R&D and new projects that are built all over the world. New concepts like Small Modular Reactors are going to be deployed in the next couple of years, and we can expect Molten Salt Reactors to come on line about a decade from now.
... an archipelago of over 7,600 islands ...Perhaps a 50+ year old reactor is not suitable for a small and dispersed community, and in such a case small plants of renewable coupled with storage can be a solution, but this solution can't scale to support large population centers.
there is no safe amount of exposure to radioactivityThis is a political statement not a scientific one. Planet Earth is radioactive. We are all exposed to natural ionizing radiation every day.
nuke supporters never include this costi recently heard it was already included.
The cost of handling used nuclear fuel has already paid by the nuclear industry, while no plans to deal with obsolete and decommissioned wind mills and solar panels was taken into account.though, how well we can trust that accounting of the costs, idk, especially passing through many differing cost-cutting political/ecconomic philosophies/strife/boombust etc. and that's just disruptions to cause concern in our lifetimes... outrageous to presume ongoing stabilities to maintain appropriate handling for all the duration needed. but then, it's still in that political/economic/business philosophy of "externalities"... someone else will deal with it. n with no way to deal with it... that "externality" is foisted upon the future. good luck with that.
This issue seems to be a global crisis already with many existing sites being compromised unexpectredly as well as where are new sites for all the output of current let alone new nuke plants going to go? since no one wants a nuke waste being stored anywhere close to where they live, this is a very significant problem.we could store the waste in space. :3 but... to really deploy that meaningfully and safely, would mean unleashing many suppressed technologies that would make any need for nuclear power redundant. #spaceshipsforeverybody