India is doing the right thing by developing thorium fast breeder reactors. There's enough thorium in earth's crust to power everything for millions of years.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Fukushima Chernobyl No thanks,
@sapinker ! -
If you care about safety, nuclear is the only choice. https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Nuclear power isn't uncomplicatedly better, but it's a useful part of a hybrid energy generation strategy.
-
Until we figure out a viable energy storage method it is the only way to get rid of fossil fuels. Wind and solar are good when available (though aren’t perfect in their environmental impact either) but energy demand doesn’t care how much wind or sun is available.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes! and they call the Wind, Mariah. (sorry, I can never resist a Clint Eastwood reference). https://www.awea.org/wind-101/basics-of-wind-energy …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
At this critical juncture, anything that reduces the carbon footprint should be aggressively pursued
-
The problem with seeing it that way is that Energy Density Matters. Wind & solar, in addition to the HUGE disadvantage of being intermittent, lose to the losers in this 'toon, yet they make people feel good anyway. It does very little to solve the problem. https://www.xkcd.com/1162/
-
A lot depends on location. Denmark produces more electricity through renewable sources (mostly windpower) than it actually uses annually. With the increase of uptake in electric cars, heating etc it’s hard to see how this can be a bad thing.
-
Well, I'm a big fan of bats, and wind power seems to have issues with birds & bats. IMO new nuclear's so energy dense we won't need wind much.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What about solar on every roof? Renewable only needs so much space because we limit our thinking to needing a large solar or wind farm somewhere. This might work in every part of the world but I can't think of a reason for this not to be the goal in the places it does.
-
I've got solar but it has drawbacks (night time is a big problem). Nuclear provides a good reliable base load.
-
There will always have to be some kind of plant as a backup, we had way too many cloudy days in PA this summer for a battery backup to have kept up. The point is that there are ways to do renewable that don't require massive amounts of land to build.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Again, the metric of land use for wind farms seems a little odd as an argument against its use. These large wind farms are in the middle of nowhere or they're located near farms where agriculture is uninterrupted. Local warming of large wind farms also seems a dubious objection.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The sound alone is destructive. Cant be used when the wind is too high, destroys protect birds. Ugly as sin. Same with solar.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I wonder whether the history books our children read will lay the blame for climate change on organisations like Greenpeace.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Fukushima set back the "nuclear is safe" argument quite a bit in the public mind. Here's a question: A modern, U. S. nuclear plant suddenly loses all its workers before they have time to turn it off. can't get in or remotely access the controls. How long until it is dangerous?
-
Depends on reactor design but most likely safe for a while.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
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.