The answer is actually “We can’t burn a limited resource to escape our reliance on limited resources”. There is no “This depends” There’s a side that’s wrong (The “Nuclear is a solution” side) and there is a side that’s not wrong.
No that’s not being fair. There is a difference between the resources needed to build something, and lighting a limited resource on fire for fuel. Especially when you still need to build the nuclear power plants.
We literally can’t switch to all nuclear right now, if we do we run out of fuel in a presidential term.
Here is the list of total places that don’t have access to wind, solar, water, or geothermal power but does have access to permanent nuclear waste storage:
End of list
That’s before we even get into the notion of reliable and cheap access to nuclear fuel. If we’re going to talk about logistics, we should actually talk about the enormous logistics required for any kind of major expansion of nuclear power that isn’t happening, won’t happen, and for which there is no plan.
Not to mention the fact that maintenance of nuclear facilities is also costly. It’s not a problem unique to or especially incumbent upon renewable energy. The attempts to “be fair” here, are just regurgitating conservative arguments for fossil fuels, except the idea here is to create a gigantic infrastructure project for an intentional stopgap that would take so long to actually build we could also just build the fucking renewable capacity.
It genuinely cannot be overstated how much nuclear is just a distraction at this point.
You’re argument to not invest in infrastructure projects because it’s expensive is one of the single most moronic statements I have read in a long time
That’s fucking cute coming from someone acting like their argument is being misunderstood. Absolute banger of a nonsense statement. I’d delete my entire account had I said something like this. You owe me an actual apology for this.
The issue is not merely that nuclear is “expensive”. It’s that any argument about the cost and necessity of maintenance of renewable energy sources applies equally if not more so to nuclear power. It is not “Being fair” to apply the issue of cost to renewable energy but not to nuclear power. It’s a selective application of a problem that exists more so for the thing you’re arguing for. It’s dishonest.
But on top of that any kind of responsible expansion of nuclear power requires infrastructure that we not only aren’t building because of cost, but won’t build because it is a gigantic political hot potato with incredibly vast implications.
Permanent nuclear waste storage does not exist. The closest is a facility in Finland that’s been “almost built” for decades.
Edit: And that’s not even getting into the fact that expanding nuclear power capacity would take as long as expanding renewable capacity. It’s a non solution to the issue.
Nuclear power also does not need to be a stopgap,
It literally fucking does. That’s… the entire environmentalist argument for nuclear. What the fuck are you smoking.
The reason nuclear power can even be defended is that it is a superior alternative environmentally to fossil fuels, not that it can serve as a permanent replacement to other sources of energy.
Yeah calling me unserious and then jumping over to arguments against coal power as an argument isn’t going to fly. Do better. Especially when you then claim nuclear storage is not an issue.
Nuclear is only useful insofar as it is a temporary stopgap and a replacement for building fossil fuel plants, but the time to build up nuclear capacity was 40 years ago. It is not now, when we should be focusing on renewable sources of energy, clamoring against that by saying yeah well it’s gonna take steel to do that is fucking baby brained, and calling anyone unserious after that was your first fucking argument isn’t even ironic, it’s just fucking stupid.
The answer is actually “We can’t burn a limited resource to escape our reliance on limited resources”. There is no “This depends” There’s a side that’s wrong (The “Nuclear is a solution” side) and there is a side that’s not wrong.
deleted by creator
No that’s not being fair. There is a difference between the resources needed to build something, and lighting a limited resource on fire for fuel. Especially when you still need to build the nuclear power plants. We literally can’t switch to all nuclear right now, if we do we run out of fuel in a presidential term.
deleted by creator
Here is the list of total places that don’t have access to wind, solar, water, or geothermal power but does have access to permanent nuclear waste storage:
End of list
That’s before we even get into the notion of reliable and cheap access to nuclear fuel. If we’re going to talk about logistics, we should actually talk about the enormous logistics required for any kind of major expansion of nuclear power that isn’t happening, won’t happen, and for which there is no plan. Not to mention the fact that maintenance of nuclear facilities is also costly. It’s not a problem unique to or especially incumbent upon renewable energy. The attempts to “be fair” here, are just regurgitating conservative arguments for fossil fuels, except the idea here is to create a gigantic infrastructure project for an intentional stopgap that would take so long to actually build we could also just build the fucking renewable capacity.
It genuinely cannot be overstated how much nuclear is just a distraction at this point.
deleted by creator
That’s fucking cute coming from someone acting like their argument is being misunderstood. Absolute banger of a nonsense statement. I’d delete my entire account had I said something like this. You owe me an actual apology for this.
The issue is not merely that nuclear is “expensive”. It’s that any argument about the cost and necessity of maintenance of renewable energy sources applies equally if not more so to nuclear power. It is not “Being fair” to apply the issue of cost to renewable energy but not to nuclear power. It’s a selective application of a problem that exists more so for the thing you’re arguing for. It’s dishonest.
But on top of that any kind of responsible expansion of nuclear power requires infrastructure that we not only aren’t building because of cost, but won’t build because it is a gigantic political hot potato with incredibly vast implications. Permanent nuclear waste storage does not exist. The closest is a facility in Finland that’s been “almost built” for decades.
Edit: And that’s not even getting into the fact that expanding nuclear power capacity would take as long as expanding renewable capacity. It’s a non solution to the issue.
It literally fucking does. That’s… the entire environmentalist argument for nuclear. What the fuck are you smoking. The reason nuclear power can even be defended is that it is a superior alternative environmentally to fossil fuels, not that it can serve as a permanent replacement to other sources of energy.
deleted by creator
Yeah calling me unserious and then jumping over to arguments against coal power as an argument isn’t going to fly. Do better. Especially when you then claim nuclear storage is not an issue. Nuclear is only useful insofar as it is a temporary stopgap and a replacement for building fossil fuel plants, but the time to build up nuclear capacity was 40 years ago. It is not now, when we should be focusing on renewable sources of energy, clamoring against that by saying yeah well it’s gonna take steel to do that is fucking baby brained, and calling anyone unserious after that was your first fucking argument isn’t even ironic, it’s just fucking stupid.
genuinely go back to reddit