Fusion could still take decades, or maybe never happen at all. Modern fission reactor designs are already more than safe enough. We can’t afford to wait any longer.
You’re right. But I don’t get how people can’t see the risk. No matter how many controls you put in place, how safe you make it, there’s always a chance. And if that happens, we face a nuclear meltdown which will make the place and nearby locations uninhabitable for hundreds of years. I don’t know if controls even exist to prevent a meltdown caused by an earthquake or tornado/hurricane.
What is preferrable: a tiny chance to make a small area (Chernobyl-size is impossible with modern reactors) uninhabitable or a guarantee to make the entire planet uninhabitable?
Fusion is perhaps better, but not ready. We’re out of time, and doing nothing new guarantees death for all.
Modern nuclear reactors, especially ones not trying to turn a profit, and be made extremely safe in almost any environment. Investment in solar and wind is good too, but they can’t handle the current loads needed to keep things working.
Even something as simple as requiring all new construction be outfitted with solar panels would be a step forward, but politics and money will be the death of us all. Literally.
Lol. Well how many people would die if we stopped using fossil fuels? In the end we’ll have to rely on technology to fix this.
We have the technology. Nuclear power can save the planet.
There is no will to put in the work.
Unfortunately, it’s too late to change people’s minds now that they’ve grown up thinking nuclear power is the devil.
“It’s easier to fool a man than to convince him he’s been fooled.”
How do we make it safe with the rise of natural disasters? Nuclear meltdowns are bad for us and the environment.
I’m really looking forward to advancements in nuclear fusion.
Fusion could still take decades, or maybe never happen at all. Modern fission reactor designs are already more than safe enough. We can’t afford to wait any longer.
You’re right. But I don’t get how people can’t see the risk. No matter how many controls you put in place, how safe you make it, there’s always a chance. And if that happens, we face a nuclear meltdown which will make the place and nearby locations uninhabitable for hundreds of years. I don’t know if controls even exist to prevent a meltdown caused by an earthquake or tornado/hurricane.
What is preferrable: a tiny chance to make a small area (Chernobyl-size is impossible with modern reactors) uninhabitable or a guarantee to make the entire planet uninhabitable?
Fusion is perhaps better, but not ready. We’re out of time, and doing nothing new guarantees death for all.
Modern nuclear reactors, especially ones not trying to turn a profit, and be made extremely safe in almost any environment. Investment in solar and wind is good too, but they can’t handle the current loads needed to keep things working.
Even something as simple as requiring all new construction be outfitted with solar panels would be a step forward, but politics and money will be the death of us all. Literally.
I’m all for nuclear power. What I meant more is about removing the excess greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere.