i'm generally a supporter of nuclear and there are a lot of arguments that it's even radiologically less damaging that e.g. coal but there are reasons to be skeptical about cost (and time to build), waste management, and safety in black swan circumstances (e.g. fukushima)
-
-
the window of time to solve the energy crisis with next gen nuclear is closing, both because there's not that much time left to fit carbon budgets, but also pressure from renewables and storage and natural gas
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Next gen nuclear is v v safe done right, couple outlier events shouldn't stop us from doing what will be required to not kill earth.
-
you have the state capacity to make tens to hundreds to thousands of these and put them on some not disaster prone area and also collectively solve the waste problem through processing, I agree, China or the USA or India or Brazil or France can do this. but not cheap in abs $'s
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
*Every* nuclear plant in service is based on designs from the 1940’s or earlier. There are new designs that are much safer, use the waste from the existing plants as fuel, so don’t require additional mining either. Thousands of years of fuel already above ground, in KY….
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

