[8bitsrule]

Now there'a title that Ed Bernays would be proud of. 'A new generation approves.' So, where's this new generation? What demonstrates their love? Show me pictures of a dozen, or it didn't happen. Then, show how that scales with full knowledge of history, not just free jelly babies.

Fantasy fiction isn't going to solve our dilemma. Advanced, less toxic technology will. Nuclear has had its chance.

[ThomPete]

Nuclear is the safest, most scaleable, greenest most reliable power source we know of bar none and blows every other alternative energy out of the water at 1000w per m2.

Far less people have because of nuclear power in all its time than gets killed by nature in a year.

The environmentalist not rationality kille nuclear.

[8bitsrule]

No! Even the 'new' ones are killing it? Too slow, too expensive, too toxic.

Hmmm, let's see: how many years before the residents of the San Onofre region finish paying for its recent failed upgrade ? Then how much more will they pay for decommissioning it?

That 'clean, safe, too cheap to meter' line is from the 1950s. Before longer we'll have a decentralized, more secure power source that actually lives up to those lies. And best of all? The fuel supply will never be exhausted ... never need to be decommmissioned ... and lives a nice safe 90M miles away.

[ThomPete]

Thats not because of the technology but legislation around it. Most of the pricing will go down once more gets put up so yes and its a hell more effective than wind snd solar which arent even supporting 1% of the worlds supply and not even close to a realistic solution to them beeing unreliable and frankly inferior even with a 300% improvement which isnt possible.

[PavlovsCat]

> Nuclear is the safest, most scaleable, greenest most reliable power source we know of bar none

That doesn't change the article we have here.

[ThomPete]

I was responding to the comment not the article

[PavlovsCat]

> So, where's this new generation? What demonstrates their love? Show me pictures of a dozen, or it didn't happen.

That's the point of the comment. "Nuclear had it's chance" is what you latched onto, concluding with "The environmentalist not rationality kille nuclear". So I guess you agree, the title is BS.

[ThomPete]

I don't care about the title. I care about the claim that nuclear had it's chance which anyone who knows their history know isn't true whatso ever.

Again solar has 1% of the worlds energy covered that's it. This is with all the bells and whistle and political support and economic investments.

Nuclear will EVEN without that deliver way more energy, much more stable, in abundance form and scaleable plus it's safe and greener than even solar.

Claiming it had it's time is ideologically blind in a way only people who listen too much to politicians like to think.

Call me when sun is used for most of the tranportation industry and for large constructions etc. Call me when the poor countries can solve the problems nature provides via solar.