You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
12 points

Containing the radiation isn’t the same as resolving the nuclear waste problem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

That’s why we’ve already seen breakthroughs in reactors that use nuclear waste for fuel.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Which if they were practically feasible, still wouldn’t be running for another ten years. Whereas the time and money and resources looking for breakthroughs in that ten years, could easily go to renewables and hey, they don’t need a breakthrough solution for nuclear waste. They already work and already are cheaper. Literally the solution. Right there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

It’s still better than the totally uncontained pollution and carbon dioxide of fossil fuels.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

No. It’s kicking the can down the road. And when there is a real, viable, cleaner, cheaper option already up and running, nuclear is simply not the answer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

It’s better than what we are doing to limit the emissions from petroleum.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

That’s kinda the problem. Money that should be going to renewables is going to nuclear, which won’t be effective for many years. Renewables don’t have the high cost and requirements and ramp up time nuclear requires.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Memes

!memes@lemmy.ml

Create post

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

Community stats

  • 17

    Monthly active users

  • 4.7K

    Posts

  • 22K

    Comments