Nuclear is Not a Viable Solution
Nuclear is Not a Viable Solution
insightsinnovationecon.substack.com
Nuclear is Not a Viable Solution
Long article explaining why nuclear energy is not feasible and not insurable.
10 comments
-
-
It'd have to be pretty long to get all the way to a conclusion that meaningless.
-
The same bs talking points again? Why are we repeating this?
-
This site looks sketchy as fuck not gonna lie, who are these people lmao
-
Must be a Monday for a take this fucking stupid.
Green glowy rock gives off electrons for free
Idiots: "that's not viable for producing energy."
-
-
Apparently it needs to be said again
The answer to energy problems shouldn't have to be either renewables or nuclear. It should be both to tailor the best solution to the environment in which we need power.
Solar and wind power aren't always suitable when you're trying to provide power to places that aren't known for a bunch of solar or wind power. What's the solution there? Burn more oil and coal? No. Use nuclear.
Inb4 "just use dams bro"
We literally alter an entire ecosystem when we put in dams for power generation. We should be trying to avoid massive ecological impacts. That's why fossil fuels bad.
Tldr; stop limiting your ecologically safe power choices. Tailor the solution to the environment you are powering.
-
After 1980, most of that isn't true except for the tacked-on comment about renewables.
I hope there's been more updating than just a tilt of the head at windmills.
-
-
10 comments
Always good to remember coal plants are more radioactive than nuclear
Always good to remember that both coal and uranium reserves are finite.
Yes, you learned your nuclear apologetics handbook very well. 10/10
Well, ye, that's one of the main talking points in the article. Another one of is the waste problem, of which coal power produces almost a million x more!