We should have been building molten salt thorium reactors since the 60s. We could have been off fossil fuels 25 years ago.
Support. Use it to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, while we continue to expand renewable sources of energy. Continue with development of fusion reactors. Eventually, fusion will be the primary source of power and the foreseeable negative issues (from all sources, including renewables) will be history.
RJ basically said what I think, except large scale fusion is probably a long way off. Aka more than 20 years. 😛
We're more likely to see Gen IV reactors come online in that time. They will be essentially immune to meltdown and have little to no proliferation risk. Also should be much cheaper to build on a large scale.
On top of that, if renewables keep making the progress they are, they're going to be a big part of future energy production.
@VeganCrusader come make your case
Is he against it?
It's all we need.
I definitely support it over fossil fuels, but would support alternative clean energy over nuclear. I say we switch/stick to nuclear to wean us off of fossil fuels and then slowly switch to solar/wind/hydro power and get rid of nuclear power.
Supposrt as a temporary measure to reduce fossil fuel usage. Eventually i would like to see other energy sources like solar, wind and HEP to provide 100% of energy but until the tech is ready to do that nuclear is our best option
That seems like the best option, but I worry that weaning off of nuclear would be like weaning off of statism under Marxist theory. It never seems to work out that way.
Probably not, but that was in an ideal world
It's the worlds greatest energy source.
I'm undecided so convince me.
What concerns do you still have about it?
I'm not an expert, but it seems to be the most viable alternative source of energy.
There are no downsides except possible meltdowns. But they are so unlikely that it isn't worth worrying about. It provides practically unlimited energy compared to other sources. Do you know how much energy a tennis ball sized piece of Uranium could produce? It is a clean source of energy as well. As I said, only in an accident is there an environmental threat. And with proper precautions that never happens.
And a war with the Middle East over oil is a lot more of a risk.
Well, no. We have rather skillfully cause the Middle East to go into a state of perpetual conflict. That isn't a risk. It is more profitable. But it causes environmental problems. Also, nuclear energy is a substitute for coal, not oil.
This article crunched the numbers and seemed pretty objective.
Gow, I don't like that it's not a renewable energy source, and I don't see why we can't invest more in solar and wind and bypass nuclear altogether. M
We haven't properly updated our nuclear infrastructure for decades. A reasonable investment in the technology we have right now could easily supplement all of our energy needs.
Nuclear not being renewable isn't a problem. Uranium is plentiful and you only need a single pellet of fuel to make the same amount of energy as 17,000 cubit feet of natural gas. In addition the fuel can be recycled and reused. Running out of fuel isn't a problem.
Plus thorium-based nuclear energy is even more efficient than uranium.
It's better then wind or solar because a single plant can make enough energy to power millions of homes. You could switch the U.S. to clean nuclear energy much faster then switching it over to wind or solar energy.
And by the time we run out, we will have expanded across the solar system to get radioactive elements from other planets. We will never have a problem.