IMHO I do not think nuclear will save us from climate change - it takes too long to get going to be effective - but this is going to really agitate some chud/nerd brains worms
No perfect solution exists yet to handle nuclear waste for longer than all of recorded history, so we shouldn’t do it. Let’s cook to death and return to monke. I am a very serious science person.
Literally no serious person says that we shouldn’t do it, their point is that the containment issues constrain how much capacity nuclear can actually provide to the grid in lieu of fossil fuels. There’s also a limit to the construction of reactor vessels and cores because of the scarce materials they require which poses a further constraint. They’re literally just trying to temper the expectations of terminally online science news readers who think nuclear is some magic solution to climate change because they don’t understand its limitations properly
terminally online science news readers
TBF the type of person who reads most of the crap put out science magazines thinks we will have fusion tech in 5 years anyway, science journalism is trash, just a constant merry-go-round of "new materials found that in next 5 years will stop climate change/world hunger/gravity/cure cancer/male pattern baldness ", it’s no wonder techbros think we can just science our way out of any problems, this shit will rot your brain.
Can’t we just send that nuclear refuse into space? Or is it crazy massive
sending stuff into space is never a viable solution because for every kg of stuff you need probably 1000 kg of rocket
? You can make rocket fuel from just sucking shit out the air, which just goes back into the air when you burn it.
The fuel in a rocket is a small percentage of the actual cost to launch, the rocket itself costs millions of hours of labor to make and is single use. Space is not a viable solution for any kind of waste disposal.
:xicko:
