|
|
|
|
|
|
by blacklion
987 days ago
|
|
|
It takes much less space (including storage for waste of current generation power plants, and we could close fuel cycle if we spent a tiny fraction of money used to whitewash oil companies to this research) that all fields of wind generators and solar panels. Also, modern nuclear station has resource much larger than modern wind generators, which is made of glass and resin. Nuclear power plant don't take space needed to graze cattle and seed crops, don't kill soil with vibration as wind turbines, don't change local micro climate as solar panels deployed on square kilometers. "Only" problem with nuclear plant is possible terrorist attack (modern control systems should exclude manual control and Chernobyl scenario). Yes, uranium is theoretically finite, but only now known reserves is enough for something like 100'000 years on current level of power production of whole planet (not current power production of existing nuclear power plants, but total power production as-if it is made only by nuclear plants). And it is not all reserves for sure, and in 100'000 years, I hope, fusion power plants will be reality |
|
|
With regard to space needed: imagine if every existing building had roof top solar panels. We’d get quite far. I think we have the space for a few wind turbines to get us the final few kWh.
What do you think we should do with nuclear waste?
And how do you feel about giving every country in the world access to technology that also lets them develop nuclear weapons? Or should a select group of countries be environmentally conscious and the rest use fossil fuels? Renewables can be given to every country without risk.
This article has some interesting insights with regards to nuclear vs renewable energy: https://energypost.eu/renewable-energy-versus-nuclear-dispel...