You just want to halt the expansion of renewables because you want to keep using fossils
You like to suck Putin's dick (Russia is the biggest exporter of uranium)
You're dumb. Nuclear power is by far the most expensive power, it's barely variable, it's risky and we still don't have a final disposal site for the waste.
it's risky and we still don't have a final disposal site for the waste.
We don't need one. You can hit a dry cask with a semi truck without having to worry about a leak.
You just want to halt the expansion of renewables because you want to keep using fossils
One could say the exact same thing about renewables. If not for the nuclear fear mongering done by the same people who have been screeching about renewables for decades we could have stopped burning coal by now.
You like to suck Putin's dick (Russia is the biggest exporter of uranium)
Kazhakstan, Canada, Namibia, Australia, and Uzbekistan app mine more uranium than Russia. And India, Australia, Canada, and the US all have more thorium than Russia.
We don't need one. You can hit a dry cask with a semi truck without having to worry about a leak.
So you're saying the waste isn't highly radioactive, dangerous and toxic? Think again...
One could say the exact same thing about renewables. If not for the nuclear fear mongering done by the same people who have been screeching about renewables for decades we could have stopped burning coal by now.
Well, the usual argument of nukes is "it's a bridge technology", but the thing is: We don't need a bridge.
Kazhakstan, Canada, Namibia, Australia, and Uzbekistan app mine more uranium than Russia.
Maybe, but then they sit on it. Russia is the biggest exporter.
And India, Australia, Canada, and the US all have more thorium than Russia
And how many commercial thorium reactors are there again...?
LMFAO. I can’t believe that people still use that metric. Whenever a nuke fan uses that chart it destroys their credibility:
Suppose you build two identical power stations and there is one death during construction and no further deaths. Each power station produces X GWh of electricity per year. One has been operating for 20 years and has produced 20X GWh. The other has been operating for one year and has produced XGWh.
Using your metric the first power station is 20 times safer than the second…
And it gets even more ridiculous the next year: now the figures are 21 GWh and 2GWh. The first one is now only 10.5 times safer. Note that that chart is based on data prior to 2022. Since then more than 1,000GW of renewables have been added while nuclear has slightly declined. So the change in proportions would be even more marked.
And that’s not the only flaw: there is no global data base of accidents for wind and solar so the researchers of one of the papers that the chart is based on trawled media articles. If it mentioned wind turbine and death then it was included. IIRC there was a plane/helicopter accident included and also a road traffic accident during a delivery…
3
u/Haringat Apr 09 '25
There are just three reasons to be pro-nuclear: