LuvOrlando
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
I think your definition of clean and mine are very very different, nuclear waste is catastrophic. My objective is to find fuel that is not detrimental to the environment so this is a complete big no, we are going from bad to worse.Nuclear plants are clean energy that don’t require near the amount of land space that wind or solar require. At this point in time, you would need A LOT of wind/solar to replace fossil fuel energy for an entire country. That’s not to say that a combination wouldn’t be a bad idea, but to dismiss nuclear energy totally is a mistake if you want to eliminate fossil fuel energy any time soon.
Besides, even with Chernobyl, 3 Mile island and Fukushima, fossil fuel plants have killed FAR more people.
A radioactive half life of 30 years means ONLY half of it has deteriorated in 30 years and it takes 30 more years for half of that to decay and another 30 for half of the remaining 1/8... that is a LOT of time. Land by Chernobyl still isn't safe and the fact it is seething right now is very concerning. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html
This is part of the issue in Ukraine because recent actions make it plain that these power plants can be easily turned against the host location, if you host a plant no-one needs to bring a device to the altercation, you have the makings on one right there that only need to be tweaked. If you understand what happens at the plant you understand why it is a liability.
Everyone advocating understands what happens when the reactions stop being cooled, correct?
Again water, wind & sun are fine.
Last edited: