How many of you are onboard with increased nuclear energy? It is capable of solving
A large component of pollution, and if you buy into the idea that man can meaningfully affect climate change, then this is the answer staring you in the face.
Some of you should read up on improvements in nuclear reactor tech that mitigate much of previous risks and cost. Yet we have built only one or two reactors in the past 40 years while our old plants age out and work on more inefficiently and at higher (though still very low) risk.
Given what the Climate Changers believe, I can’t believe any o hem would hesitate to jump on board with this. Of course, wacky cults are unpredictable. It will likely need to align with the rest of their dogma unrelated to the issue.
Replies to: How many of you are onboard with increased nuclear energy? It is capable of solving
wait a minute
the libs were against this because it was to dangerous.
now they're for r it. could they have been wrong yet again.
looks like it
100% yes
The dangers are overhyped.
It wouldn’t replace everything - you can’t have nuclear reactors on cars - but we ought to have breeder reactors everywhere.
Agreed.
(no message)
Excellent. Nuc Energy can replace gas cars by providing bountiful, low cost electricity btw.
(no message)
Then, the coal powered electric cars will become nuke powered electric cars. That's a plus.
(no message)
Cousin has Ph.D from Cal Tech in physics, "Nuclear energy is grossly underused."
(no message)
I would like to answer, but I am behind in reading Lachlan Markay tweets.
(no message)
my brother is a ga. tech e.e. who has worked as the lead project manager in nuke energy for decades.
he has an extensive background in everything that goes into nuclear energy and will tell you unequivocally that it is the cleanest, lowest cost, safest energy in the history of the planet. oh, yeah.... he's also a very honest, hard-working and intelligent man.
i believe him.
I’m all in on this. Minnie reactors are economical and safer than any other plant.
We were all set to move in this direction before the Japanese tsunami meltdown freaked us out. That involved an ancient technology and a freak event.
The Mickie Reactor didn't work out too well, though.
(no message)
As long as we also pay people who are unwilling to work. That will help slow climate change.
(no message)
The biggest problem with nuclear is the waste.
But all things considered, it may be the best choice in many areas.
Shoot it into space. Not joking.
(no message)
We had a comprehensive solution for this as far back as 1987.
And when the universe starts contracting again?
You're so short-sighted...
Lead umbrella?
(no message)
And when the rocket blows up on launch?
(no message)
Surely we can make survivable containment
We put it in containers that look like big hockey pucks now. Surely those hockey pucks can be made to survive an explosion.
Explosion proof things tend to be heavy.
Things that are heavy are expensive to put into space.
And then where do you go with it? It's not like things in space ever come back to earth. And your containment isn't likely to survive the return trip.
Remember George Carlin asking why the whole plane wasn't made of the same material as the black box.
(no message)
Heh, yeah that was a good one.
(no message)
Launch it from San Francisco.
See, everything has a solution. :)
You trying to create a nuclear shitstorm?
(no message)
They are SO devious!!! So THAT'S why they fill their sidewalks with human feces!
(no message)
you can build a quality, low-cost, very long, very high and hot wall with the waste.
unbelievable how many birds you could get with that stone....
This is a great idea.
(no message)
Waste is not a problem. We had a plan.
We were ready to go with Yucca Mountain. Harry Reed took billions of dollars for his state to build the repository for nuclear waste. After taking all of those billions he deep-sixed it on the last day. It was all a charade. Now we store the waste where it's created and it's much more unsafe than what it would be in Yucca Mountain.
At least the waste ends up in a barrel, & not ejected into the environment. Seems like an advantage.
(no message)