Except that Nuclear actually is the greenest energy we have. The impact from solar and wind is far greater than most realise. Solar requires ridiculous amounts of mining for all the silicon needed in solar panels and to be replaced every few years, and wind turbine blades cannot be recycled and need to be changed out every 5 or so years IIRC.
By contrast, thorium salt reactors cannot go into meltdown (because by design the operation is already in "meltdown"), there is enough thorium on Earth that if we switched solely to thorium salt reactors it would last hundreds of generations (even accounting for population growth) and thorium is pretty abundant in space as well. On top of that, old reactor designs were highly inefficient. For one, uranium was used because it provided by-products that could be used for making weapons. But secondly, it only burned about 30% of the material before it needed to be thrown away and stored underground. However, there are modern reactor designs that can burn ~80% of the material making it far more efficient, AND there are waste burners that can use the vast majority of that remaining 20% (as well as the old stuff that's been stored underground and elsewhere, which would mean that efforts could be made to get rid of/heavily reduce already stored waste and clean up those areas for environmental rehabilitation).
On top of this, any nuclear emissions are just steam, as water is what is heated to turn the turbines in a reactor. In fact, coal burning actually produces more radioactive emissions per kW than nuclear due to imperfect burning.
And lastly, on top of all of that, Nuclear Energy is also the safest. Including tragedies, there are significantly less deaths per kW produced than any other power generation due to the dangers of material collection and worksite safety.
There is a reason that both coal/oil/gas and "green" energy suppliers lobby against nuclear, because it's a major threat to them.
If you didn't have any other reason to be skeptical of climate change alarmism, their opposition to nuclear power alone would be more than enough to call their motives into question.
Nuclear energy is one of the most significant accomplishments of our time and they oppose it debateably even more strongly than they oppose fossil fuels.
To be fair to normies that are against nuclear, a big part of that is Green Scare Propaganda, where they're told of the horrors of things like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, even though one of those was a direct failure of the state cutting corners, and the other resulted in no deaths and minimal natural impact.
I cannot truly blame people who are ignorant of topics that aren't something that would impact their day to day life. It would be weird to expect normal people to know the pros, cons and inner workings of different energy generation methods, because unless you're working in the industry or something adjacent to it, there's little need to know anything about it.
That said, advocates (particularly those that have political presences) are another story. And I don't just mean someone who's ultimately a normie but has been lead to believe "renewables" is the way, but those that DO know more than the average person on nuclear and STILL kneejerks against it because they refuse to understand the technological advances that have been made. For fucks sake, the handwringing is almost exclusively about Chernobyl, a reactor that was notoriously poorly built, but beyond that was first started construction in '72, meaning that most of the designs were from the 60s. And it's baffling that people cannot comprehend that humanity as a whole has made significant scientific advancements in nuclear energy production over the course of over half a fucking century. And that's with massive stigma and uphill battles to secure funding for this research.
So again, I understand the ignorance from normies because there's no reasonable expectation for them to know the knowledge, but it's certainly not excusable by people that claim to have some sort of knowledge on the topic. We cannot survive creating a world reliant upon batteries and renewables that barely last a decade before needing to be replaced and then the old ones can barely be recycled if they can be recycled at all.
Not much on hand, to be honest. But a good place to start is to simply read up on Thorium Salt Reactors in the first place, and generally a lot of these topics will be covered or natural leads into those other points. That said, if there's anything specific, I could try to go through some of my shit to find if I ended up saving it or not.
Except that Nuclear actually is the greenest energy we have. The impact from solar and wind is far greater than most realise. Solar requires ridiculous amounts of mining for all the silicon needed in solar panels and to be replaced every few years, and wind turbine blades cannot be recycled and need to be changed out every 5 or so years IIRC.
By contrast, thorium salt reactors cannot go into meltdown (because by design the operation is already in "meltdown"), there is enough thorium on Earth that if we switched solely to thorium salt reactors it would last hundreds of generations (even accounting for population growth) and thorium is pretty abundant in space as well. On top of that, old reactor designs were highly inefficient. For one, uranium was used because it provided by-products that could be used for making weapons. But secondly, it only burned about 30% of the material before it needed to be thrown away and stored underground. However, there are modern reactor designs that can burn ~80% of the material making it far more efficient, AND there are waste burners that can use the vast majority of that remaining 20% (as well as the old stuff that's been stored underground and elsewhere, which would mean that efforts could be made to get rid of/heavily reduce already stored waste and clean up those areas for environmental rehabilitation).
On top of this, any nuclear emissions are just steam, as water is what is heated to turn the turbines in a reactor. In fact, coal burning actually produces more radioactive emissions per kW than nuclear due to imperfect burning.
And lastly, on top of all of that, Nuclear Energy is also the safest. Including tragedies, there are significantly less deaths per kW produced than any other power generation due to the dangers of material collection and worksite safety.
There is a reason that both coal/oil/gas and "green" energy suppliers lobby against nuclear, because it's a major threat to them.
Or in short, the only true green energy is the loving green glow of clean nuclear.
If you didn't have any other reason to be skeptical of climate change alarmism, their opposition to nuclear power alone would be more than enough to call their motives into question.
Nuclear energy is one of the most significant accomplishments of our time and they oppose it debateably even more strongly than they oppose fossil fuels.
To be fair to normies that are against nuclear, a big part of that is Green Scare Propaganda, where they're told of the horrors of things like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, even though one of those was a direct failure of the state cutting corners, and the other resulted in no deaths and minimal natural impact.
I cannot truly blame people who are ignorant of topics that aren't something that would impact their day to day life. It would be weird to expect normal people to know the pros, cons and inner workings of different energy generation methods, because unless you're working in the industry or something adjacent to it, there's little need to know anything about it.
That said, advocates (particularly those that have political presences) are another story. And I don't just mean someone who's ultimately a normie but has been lead to believe "renewables" is the way, but those that DO know more than the average person on nuclear and STILL kneejerks against it because they refuse to understand the technological advances that have been made. For fucks sake, the handwringing is almost exclusively about Chernobyl, a reactor that was notoriously poorly built, but beyond that was first started construction in '72, meaning that most of the designs were from the 60s. And it's baffling that people cannot comprehend that humanity as a whole has made significant scientific advancements in nuclear energy production over the course of over half a fucking century. And that's with massive stigma and uphill battles to secure funding for this research.
So again, I understand the ignorance from normies because there's no reasonable expectation for them to know the knowledge, but it's certainly not excusable by people that claim to have some sort of knowledge on the topic. We cannot survive creating a world reliant upon batteries and renewables that barely last a decade before needing to be replaced and then the old ones can barely be recycled if they can be recycled at all.
got info docs for those might help some who would like to either learn more or just put an end to the nimby factor even if its just a bit
Not much on hand, to be honest. But a good place to start is to simply read up on Thorium Salt Reactors in the first place, and generally a lot of these topics will be covered or natural leads into those other points. That said, if there's anything specific, I could try to go through some of my shit to find if I ended up saving it or not.