pull down to refresh

It costs millions of dollars, takes years to get them running, the advantage is minimal since old reactors meltdown almost never, and politically the people are allergic to the word nuclear
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @TomK OP 17 Jun
do you realize that Germany alone has invested over a trillion euros in the development of so-called renewable energies, which are completely inefficient compared to nuclear energy? you always have to put things like that into perspective, otherwise this statement makes no sense at all
reply
They found a way to irradiate the nuclear waste so after 80 years its inert.
reply
do you realize that Germany alone has invested over a trillion euros in the development of so-called renewable energies, which are completely inefficient compared to nuclear energy? you always have to put things like that into perspective, otherwise this statement makes no sense at all
reply
I think you misread my comment or don't understand what i'm saying
I'm a big nuclear bull
reply
Oh, yes then, but of course the media are also to blame for the fact that this form of energy has been dropped.
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @xz 17 Jun
I feel as if the world of nuclear enrgy is shrouded in mystery. I mean, obviously if you have a related specialism, industrial, business or pure scientific, you can dig out the relevant knowledge.
I suppose just the topic or Uranium alone, would be so huge, from a geological and geopolitical perspective. But as we've seemed to admit here, there's a huge lack of awareness of the perspective in terms of investment to long-term energy security ratio.
I'd love to know more about the industry, just feel in the dark. It's not even up for discussion in general media. My mentioning of the rare disaster's that have happened were more in relation to the bad press that nuclear gets.
Security is going to be an important angle, that much I can work out for myself.
reply