Hydro is the better option but requires changes to water supply, solar requires massive fields of empty land, wind generation is loud and disturbs local wildlife while at the same time has the largest fail rate.
Nuclear is the best option. It’s the cheapest when considering the energy output, most environmentally friendly, and takes up the least amount of space.
The largest radioactive disaster was misuse of medical equipment.
Average time to build a nuclear plant is 88 months. The high end for solar is 24 months - it’s generally a fraction of that. The cost per kwh for solar is also a quarter of the cost of nuclear at worst - and that’s factoring the cost of batteries.
Hydro is about the most situational power source their is - making the blanket statement that it’s the better option a suspicious one.
Chernobyl would have turned a good portion of Europe into a radioactive wasteland if people hadn’t resigned themselves to one of the most unpleasant deaths imaginable. 37 years later, it’s still uninhabitable, with no change to that in sight.
Fukushima, which is still being actively cleaned up over a decade later, had the potential to do functionally destroy to Tokyo, displacing over 30 million people while doing untold economic damage.
Quicker to build, cheaper power, less dangerous, less environmental damage, no nuclear waste to manage, no supply chain issues with nuclear material. Last I checked, the US isn’t running out of space, so remind me - why would we want nuclear?
Chernobyl disaster was a one off caused by old tech and user error and more people have died from wind turbine accidents than they have due to nuclear reactor accidents.
The cost per kWh for solar is 7 times higher than that of modern nuclear power plants.
Nuclear is the best option. It’s the cheapest when considering the energy output, most environmentally friendly, and takes up the least amount of space.
It’s the most environmentally friendly, if you don’t consider that it is not renewable and that there are no waste management solutions for the highly radioactive waste.
It not being renewable doesn’t really matter when talking about its CO2 emissions. And the neat thing is, radioactive waste decays on its own so the “waste management” needed is to bury it somewhere and leave it there. It ain’t that complicated.
It’s a bit more complicated. Where are you gonna bury it? It has to be somewhere, where normally nobody is. Also you have to keep the waste containers safe (and in one piece) for a very, very long time. How are you gonna mark it that people thousands of years in the future still know that it is dangerous?
So does hydro, solar and wind energy generation.
Hydro is the better option but requires changes to water supply, solar requires massive fields of empty land, wind generation is loud and disturbs local wildlife while at the same time has the largest fail rate.
Nuclear is the best option. It’s the cheapest when considering the energy output, most environmentally friendly, and takes up the least amount of space.
The largest radioactive disaster was misuse of medical equipment.
Average time to build a nuclear plant is 88 months. The high end for solar is 24 months - it’s generally a fraction of that. The cost per kwh for solar is also a quarter of the cost of nuclear at worst - and that’s factoring the cost of batteries.
Hydro is about the most situational power source their is - making the blanket statement that it’s the better option a suspicious one.
Chernobyl would have turned a good portion of Europe into a radioactive wasteland if people hadn’t resigned themselves to one of the most unpleasant deaths imaginable. 37 years later, it’s still uninhabitable, with no change to that in sight.
Fukushima, which is still being actively cleaned up over a decade later, had the potential to do functionally destroy to Tokyo, displacing over 30 million people while doing untold economic damage.
Quicker to build, cheaper power, less dangerous, less environmental damage, no nuclear waste to manage, no supply chain issues with nuclear material. Last I checked, the US isn’t running out of space, so remind me - why would we want nuclear?
Chernobyl disaster was a one off caused by old tech and user error and more people have died from wind turbine accidents than they have due to nuclear reactor accidents.
The cost per kWh for solar is 7 times higher than that of modern nuclear power plants.
You failed to address Fukushima - and wind turbines don’t have the potential to render a continent uninhabitable.
Bullshit - solar costs a fraction of nuclear. this isn’t a remotely controversial statement.
It’s the most environmentally friendly, if you don’t consider that it is not renewable and that there are no waste management solutions for the highly radioactive waste.
There is a giant hole in a mountain specifically for the purpose of waste disposal.
It not being renewable doesn’t really matter when talking about its CO2 emissions. And the neat thing is, radioactive waste decays on its own so the “waste management” needed is to bury it somewhere and leave it there. It ain’t that complicated.
It’s a bit more complicated. Where are you gonna bury it? It has to be somewhere, where normally nobody is. Also you have to keep the waste containers safe (and in one piece) for a very, very long time. How are you gonna mark it that people thousands of years in the future still know that it is dangerous?