Waiting for the nuclear gang to drop in and tell us that all windmills and solar panels should be dismantled in favor of clean nuclear power plants and that Germany should never have abandoned the atom.
Then they can tell us where the budget comes from then fail to explain why it’s worth five times the price of other renewables with grid storage.
Germany shut down it’s reactors as they reached end of life. It isn’t economical to build new reactors.
Nuclear has always been a military and strategic concern. Better than importing fossil fuels from potential bad actors during the cold war and you get some MAD weapons along with it.
If you support the weapons proliferation, you support nuclear. You believe in the cold war stand off and think it’s valuable. If you don’t, want nuclear war, you have to count that as another negative.
Arguing it’s an efficient way to produce electricity, even if it’s replacing fossil fuels, is disingenuous.
Pick two out of powerful, efficient, safe. That’s nuclear power.
Only one type of reactor, the old uranium design, produces anything weapons grade (Which then requires an additional step to purify). Don’t use that reactor design.
Low-weaponization nuclear reactors already exist, industrial-scale grid storage doesn’t, but yes the answer to this dispute would be much more clear if it did!
The nuclear industry only works economically when either we need weapons grade material as a byproduct or we happen to produce electricity as a byproduct when making weapons grade material.
Waiting for the nuclear gang to drop in and tell us that all windmills and solar panels should be dismantled in favor of clean nuclear power plants and that Germany should never have abandoned the atom.
What if they advocate for nuclear power and say leave the solar panels up?
Then they can tell us where the budget comes from then fail to explain why it’s worth five times the price of other renewables with grid storage.
Germany shut down it’s reactors as they reached end of life. It isn’t economical to build new reactors.
Nuclear has always been a military and strategic concern. Better than importing fossil fuels from potential bad actors during the cold war and you get some MAD weapons along with it.
If you support the weapons proliferation, you support nuclear. You believe in the cold war stand off and think it’s valuable. If you don’t, want nuclear war, you have to count that as another negative.
Arguing it’s an efficient way to produce electricity, even if it’s replacing fossil fuels, is disingenuous.
Pick two out of powerful, efficient, safe. That’s nuclear power.
Nuclear reactors do not need to use weapons-grade materials or byproducts.
They don’t use it but they can produce it.
Only one type of reactor, the old uranium design, produces anything weapons grade (Which then requires an additional step to purify). Don’t use that reactor design.
Agreed.
Also, don’t waste money on experimenting with the others. Just build renewables and grid storage.
Low-weaponization nuclear reactors already exist, industrial-scale grid storage doesn’t, but yes the answer to this dispute would be much more clear if it did!
There are new reactors that have nothing to do with weapons manufactoring.
And they are all uneconomical.
The nuclear industry only works economically when either we need weapons grade material as a byproduct or we happen to produce electricity as a byproduct when making weapons grade material.
They aren’t an efficient use of resources.
I honestly don’t enough about this topic to understand if your telling the truth or not. My instinct says that it’s not that simple.