Permanently Deleted
this is such a strange line of argumentation;
X is unpracticible because of the way that society is set up right now
okay but X is not being done. in the future we are advocating for X is not the literal only thing we want to change. when i say i want fission in the US on a scale never seen before, that happening at all hinges on fundamentally altering the economics of energy generation! if tons of fission was something our current economy liked, we’d already fucking have it!
so imposing the problems and limitations of right now, on something unimaginable under the conditions of right now, serves only to stifle imagination and lock us into the death cult
jfc thank you. i’m just gonna copy/pasta this every time someone tells me we should drink our own piss instead of looking to the oceans / desalination as a water source because whatever unimaginative hurdle they come up with this time
ok good thread, lets do nuclear AND improve infrastructure.
https://environmentalprogress.org/the-war-on-nuclear
Sierra Club :: Has taken $136 million from nat gas/ renewables interests that stand to profit from the closure of nuclear plants.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) :: Has minimum of $70 million directly invested in oil and gas renewable energy interests that stand to profit from the closure of nuclear plants.
Environmental Defense Fund :: Has received minimum of $60 million from oil, gas, & renewables investors who would directly benefit from EDF’s anti-nuclear advocacy.
WISE International :: Funded by renewable energy interests that stand to profit from the closure of nuclear plants.
Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC) Funded by natural gas and renewable energy interests that stand to profit from the closure of nuclear plants.
Greenpeace :: Works to kill nuclear power around the world and refuses to disclose its donors.
Friends of the Earth :: Works to kill nuclear power around the world and refuses to disclose its donors.
If everything short of fusion is going to result in pollution and fusion isn’t yet viable, I go with the least-polluting method that allows for energy independence. That’s a mixture of renewable fuels which can’t separately power society and fission as the workhorse. The alternative is fossil fuels and those are objectively worse.
The U.S. uses nuclear energy for war and has had nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers for over 50 years. We could have had nuclear container ships by now.
Those things are large enough they could probably fit plants to produce hydrogen and oxygen out of the sea water. Probably wishful thinking on that one though.
Why don’t we have land plants that do that? Or at least invest in refining that kind of tech?
Nuclears best use is small scale. So the fallout is minimal.
Nuclear should be on ships and used to give power small towns north of the arctic circle or mountain towns. You could have a locked down reactor the size of a shipping container.
If it’s waste and fallout you are worried about, the logistics of large scale plants would probably be more likely to cause long term issues
The fact of the matter is that solar and wind literally cannot satisfy current power demands, and both have their own problems as well. More importantly, the production of the generators is far from carbon-neutral and as it stands right now requires materials largely flowing into the country by way of imperialism. “Green tech” is a grift that was never going to save us.
The reason people are looking at nuclear is because it may be the best of a bunch of bad options for reliable energy. As weather becomes more extreme wind and solar will increasingly just not be an option for large -scale energy production.
