You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
28

[–] RonaldMcShitlord 0 points 28 points (+28|-0) ago 

Anyone who preaches about global warming but doesn't promote nuclear energy is a fucking retarded libcuck shill who isn't really trying to fix things but just wants to use climate change as a platform to get attention.

6
-2

[–] TrueAmerican 6 points -2 points (+4|-6) ago 

Nuclear energy is not sustainable. Look at Japan Daichi reactor... still spewing contamination.. one big quake is all it takes to fuck over an entire section of the country. Renewable energy is the way to go.

2
8

[–] RonaldMcShitlord 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago  (edited ago)

We have enough thorium to fuel nuclear fission for 5-6 billion years. Longer than the remaining life of the sun. Suggesting that nuclear energy isn't "sustainable" either implies you're a fucking retard who doesn't know what the word "sustainable" means, or you're just a libcuck hippy who refuses to learn enough science to be able to understand the natural world around you. You don't fully comprehend nuclear fission (and obviously you don't understand the fuel sources) and it scares you. Try reading a book that wasn't written by a gender studies professor sometime buddy.

0
3

[–] goat2017 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Renewables don't work on any meaningful scale, and the rare earth metals used in making them aren't exactly environmentally sound.

The big problem with nuclear right now is actually a problem caused by the anti-nuclear movement. They blocked the construction of new reactors, and so all over the world we're still operating first generation reactor designs. The Fukushima reactor design was actually a modification of the first commercially available reactor design. First-gen designs are inherently unsafe and should all be decomissioned. Once the reaction rate starts to go past the acceptable range the chain reaction speeds up and the meltdown can't be stopped.

The reality is that there is no perfect solution to power generation. Everything is a cost/benefit trade-off, despite the fear surrounding nuclear it's really the most practical approach for large-scale power generation.

0
3

[–] jaceame 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The entire nation of Japan is a fault zone. Most nations do not suffer from the problem on such a scale.

0
2

[–] VictorSteinerDavion 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

While it might not be a renewable resource, or sustainable in the classic sense, it's still the only realistic solution for maintaining the base-load production required by industry.
By using nuclear power in a sensible manner, ie; not building plants in exceptionally stupid high risk areas, we can use it as an intermediary power source while a better method is developed.

While the disaster at the Japanese plant is not great, it's also very far from the doomsday event most people have convinced themselves it is.
Even the worst nuclear disaster didn't have the lethality that is often promoted by alarmists. (also)

Compare that to the death toll from other power sources, not even considering the significant impact on the environment, and simply rational thinking makes is very clear of the real world not muh feels utility of this power source.

Anyone who is against nuclear power as a mid term solution is literally against science.