It’s funny that is literally the only argument they have and the environmental negatives are completely offset by the amount of trees that are required to be planted around the nuclear power plant.
They also try to toss some insane numbers regarding how much more "carbon" is tossed around from mining uranium.
The only thing I will admit is that it does take a fair bit of time and money to produce a solid and reliable nuclear plant. There's also some question regarding efficient electrical grid distribution.
But then these idiots keep claiming they're concerned about the "long term", so why aren't they factoring in fantastic long-term solutions and doing what they can to make them work?
In an Australian government report into the feasibility of Nuclear Power they did the whole looking to the future, ie. used it as an excuse to dismiss Nuclear Power.
Their assumption (such that they could get the results the government asked for) was that over 50% of all Australian houses would have large scale battery storage by 2035.
It was one of the most retarded things I've ever read.
What's even funnier about that is that large scale battery storage would actually make nuclear power even more usable since it would offer a convenient avenue for channeling a lot of the surplus electrical energy produced.
Here’s what funny: there would have been no need to mine uranium rods for centuries. The ability to reprocess spent uranium rods exist and so feasible that it would be nearly impossible to runout. Thanks to government shittery (Jimmy Carter banning it but being unbanned by Reagen with forced higher costs), it’s impossible to setup a new facility. Even Trump prevented more from opening. The French and the Brits even reprocess the rods!
Hey, you know what does produce shit tons of energy and is zero emission? NUCLEAR.
BuT tHe AmOuNt Of CoNcReTe!
It’s funny that is literally the only argument they have and the environmental negatives are completely offset by the amount of trees that are required to be planted around the nuclear power plant.
They also try to toss some insane numbers regarding how much more "carbon" is tossed around from mining uranium.
The only thing I will admit is that it does take a fair bit of time and money to produce a solid and reliable nuclear plant. There's also some question regarding efficient electrical grid distribution.
But then these idiots keep claiming they're concerned about the "long term", so why aren't they factoring in fantastic long-term solutions and doing what they can to make them work?
In an Australian government report into the feasibility of Nuclear Power they did the whole looking to the future, ie. used it as an excuse to dismiss Nuclear Power.
Their assumption (such that they could get the results the government asked for) was that over 50% of all Australian houses would have large scale battery storage by 2035. It was one of the most retarded things I've ever read.
What's even funnier about that is that large scale battery storage would actually make nuclear power even more usable since it would offer a convenient avenue for channeling a lot of the surplus electrical energy produced.
Here’s what funny: there would have been no need to mine uranium rods for centuries. The ability to reprocess spent uranium rods exist and so feasible that it would be nearly impossible to runout. Thanks to government shittery (Jimmy Carter banning it but being unbanned by Reagen with forced higher costs), it’s impossible to setup a new facility. Even Trump prevented more from opening. The French and the Brits even reprocess the rods!
Our Agenda 2030 Build Back Better masters envision a future with zero concrete or steel. We'll have "better, greener, sustainable" materials by then.