Taking advantage of Musk? What lol? We are still talking about Joe Rogan. If Musk had a few before the show then it would mean he was drinking in the morning. That’s obviously a problem. He didn’t look like he was drinking but he was definitely on something that I’ve never been on. I’m starting to believe Azalea Banks’ story. And who cares if Musk inhaled or not...he has govt contracts and he can’t smoke weed. I love my Tesla and I’ve owned 2 of them but that doesn’t mean I have to suck Elon off over everything he does. He needs to get his **** together fast and quit trying to be Tony Stark or whatever he is doing.
Nuclear power is still playing games with our atmosphere and oceans. Not in terms of carbon, but with radioactive isotopes, some of which have insanely long half-lives.
I've done research, it's safe and clean ... if we pretend like the waste doesn't exist and nothing could ever go wrong with a power plant or waste site. Nuclear energy is playing games with the atmosphere, oceans and ultimately the health and environment of all living things. It's solving a crisis by potentially creating (or inevitably) another gigantic crisis.
You haven’t done any research on modern nuclear plants or even older nuclear plants if you are saying these things. Do you think solar power is waste free?
Come on man... I haven't done research if I say that nuclear energy and waste has presented major problems to the health of our environment? Really? Why are you insisting on ignoring/washing all the emergencies, crisis, disasters etc that nuclear energy has presented? I could link multiple cases, but I'm sure you're very likely aware of them already... Of course, I don't think solar is waste-free, battery waste is obviously an issue, manufacturing of the physical products creates waste as well, these are problems that I'd much prefer to deal with over nuclear waste which has particularly unbelievably long and devastating effects.
Actually in coming decades, nuclear waste may not be an issue. Technology will save the day. Companies like TerraPower are working to create power from Nuclear Waste.
Hey, we are all on the same team, I'd love for there to be a fix to all of the nuclear waste crisis we have. Still, we don't have it right now by any means, and until we do nuclear energy remains a gigantic risk that will keep causing disasters with half-lives ranging up to billions of years. I understand that nuclear doesn't emit carbon, and right now we are being faced with a carbon crisis and energy needs for billions of people, but I don't understand trying to completely look over the absolutely immense, and unfathomably long-lasting dangers of nuclear energy.
Because it is the lesser of two evils, it is either that or coal. Renewable energy is the future, but we are many, many decades from having renewable energy available worldwide for people from all income classes. We still have hundreds of millions of people whose daily primary energy usage is burning cow dung. There is no right or wrong answer, it is a combination of every "clean" alternative we have available that we must focus on... and the countless people who fight nuclear power are currently doing more harm than good. They're afraid of potential and "outlier" risks, when the real treat is right now with the global reliance on fossil fuels.
Pandora's Promise is a great look at the myths perpetuated by politics on nuclear power, which you seem to have been brainwashed by. Go for the facts. Scientists already came up with plants and systems to contain nuclear plant spills in the 70s but they were never pushed because big oil campaigned against them. The guy who invented them still has a plant up and running today with 0 meltdowns or errors. Check out NOVA: The Nuclear Option on netflix.
You call me brainwashed, yet send me a trailer for an entertainment film with what looks to have zero scientists involved. Here are some facts. I'm glad there is a plant out there that hasn't had any meltdowns or errors yet (i'm sure there are many), that doesn't mean it's impossible for them to have future issues as it ages, is exposed to natural disasters, human errors etc, even war. It certainly doesn't mean we have an effective way to deal with the waste either. There are many failing nuclear waste sites right now that are immediate hazards, Fukushima is still a crisis ... I don't understand how I'm being called brainwashed for believing these are real problems. I'm not sure it's the lesser of two evils. When these radioactive elements have half-lives that last up to billions of years, it's not something that should be glossed over quickly without being 100% sure it won't have devasting failures, and effects on human / environmental health.
But nuclear waste can and is stored safely. We have plenty of "safe spaces" to store the waste. Storing Nuclear Waste will always be better than using fossil fuels. Fallout from a nuclear disaster is limited by area, where fallout from greenhouse gases is global. The major nuclear failures have either been man made through ineptitude, natural disaster, or both. Environmental scientists across the board agree that nuclear is better than fossil fuels, and any fight against nuclear, just means future reliance on fossil fuels. Developing nations are 30-40 years at the very least from being renewably viable.
If it's stored safely then what just happened in Hanford, what's happening on the Enewetak Atoll? These are absolutely gross examples of how loosely nuclear waste is being handled. Nuclear fallout is of course extremely devastating for the localized area but it absolutely makes its way around the entire globe. Radiation hit the US just 3 days after the Fukushima* explosions and reached the west coast ocean about 5-6 years later.
He didn't say responsibly. If it's safe and responsible, then one would to have to engineer a strong guarantee containment would last beyond entire half life of the waste along with the geological changes the Earth might undergo during that time.
At the end of the day it is semantics. Fight nuclear and all you're doing is perpetuating and even increasing the use of fossil fuels. Simple as that. More than half of Asia, the vast majority of Africa and up to half of South America are not and will not be economically able to roll out wide spread renewable energy for decades.
This is a bad argument bro. I'm not perpetuating fossil fuels, I'm saying nuclear is incredibly risky. I don't find solving a crisis with another inevitable crisis to be a smart decision... and if you want to think about economics you can look at how economical it is to build nuclear power plants, store nuclear waste, and more importantly to clean up meltdowns like Fukushima and failed waste sites, that will certainly be extremely unaffordable for many poor countries, which is why nuclear power plants are almost exclusive to wealthy nations (who are now shying away from nuclear due to economic and environmental/health reasons). If you're asking what I'm for, if I'm against both follis fuel and nuclear, I'll tell you. I'm for incentivizing development and mass implication of energy efficiency across all sectors, which can make a worlds difference. I'm for preserving forest & reforestation, strict environmental and health standards... and most importantly safe and clean production of solar, hydro and thermal energy. Not to forget, increased education and birth control methods for developing countries.
Which is what I wish we would have done as a society before we every implemented nuclear energy... but we didn't... at all (because it's basically impossible). Also, not just the half-life (which is literally just half of its' life) but the entire lifespan until complete dissipation.
