Just going to point out most of these comments, including the original, are based on Chernobyl which was a reactor not built to standard and based older tech even during its time. I’m not against renewables, but a nuclear reactor is definitely better than a coal plant or natural gas plant in terms of energy production, safety (modern tech to today, stop thinking Chernobyl) CO2 production, and sustainability.
Fukushima was supposed to be better. It wasn’t. They weren’t an abandoned Soviet reactor, they were efficient, well-trained Japanese. 3 mile island was America. It can happen anywhere.
Don’t compare nuclear to coal. Nobody’s making new coal plants, and they sure wouldn’t have been replaced by a far more expensive nuclear plant.
You are against renewables. In the time it takes to design, build, and start operation of a nuclear plant, you could have made an entire factory to produce wind turbines or photovoltaics, and have been making product for years before the nuclear plant even opens. If they open, because most nuclear reactors don’t go online due to cost overruns, time overruns, construction problems, etc… Then they just sit there, a big concrete foundation making zero energy.
Your thinking is out of the 1970’s-80’s. Completely outdated by at least 50 years.
Well I tried. Seems like I’m getting a response from. someone who is offended at the idea of nuclear energy and now using feelings to make a statement. Fukushima was hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami and it didn’t go critical like Chernobyl. Again, renewables are a great idea until you have to scale in massive countries. This is why China has started up Thorium reactors and aggressively going after fusion. They have massive solar plants too! And yes, there are plans for idiots to start up new coal plants in the US, because they’re idiots.
Just going to point out most of these comments, including the original, are based on Chernobyl which was a reactor not built to standard and based older tech even during its time. I’m not against renewables, but a nuclear reactor is definitely better than a coal plant or natural gas plant in terms of energy production, safety (modern tech to today, stop thinking Chernobyl) CO2 production, and sustainability.
Fukushima was supposed to be better. It wasn’t. They weren’t an abandoned Soviet reactor, they were efficient, well-trained Japanese. 3 mile island was America. It can happen anywhere.
Don’t compare nuclear to coal. Nobody’s making new coal plants, and they sure wouldn’t have been replaced by a far more expensive nuclear plant.
You are against renewables. In the time it takes to design, build, and start operation of a nuclear plant, you could have made an entire factory to produce wind turbines or photovoltaics, and have been making product for years before the nuclear plant even opens. If they open, because most nuclear reactors don’t go online due to cost overruns, time overruns, construction problems, etc… Then they just sit there, a big concrete foundation making zero energy.
Your thinking is out of the 1970’s-80’s. Completely outdated by at least 50 years.
Well I tried. Seems like I’m getting a response from. someone who is offended at the idea of nuclear energy and now using feelings to make a statement. Fukushima was hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami and it didn’t go critical like Chernobyl. Again, renewables are a great idea until you have to scale in massive countries. This is why China has started up Thorium reactors and aggressively going after fusion. They have massive solar plants too! And yes, there are plans for idiots to start up new coal plants in the US, because they’re idiots.
Fukushima shouldn’t have been built that close to a fault line and the ocean.
China is building coal plants