basscycles

basscycles t1_iuev2wg wrote

https://e360.yale.edu/features/three-myths-about-renewable-energy-and-the-grid-debunked
I'm not "ignoring that the alternative to not going nuclear is to continue down the path of fossil fuels like natural gas which contribute to carbon pollution."
I'm disputing and calling it bullshit. By the time you have built your nuke plant the wind/solar farm down the road has been producing electricity for 5-10 years.

0

basscycles t1_iuc9sqs wrote

>You can’t just assert that there are “buried” incidents with no evidence.

In 1957, the Mayak plant was the site of a major disaster, one of many other such accidents, releasing more radioactive contamination than Chernobyl.[citation needed] An improperly stored underground tank of high-level liquid nuclear waste exploded, contaminating thousands of square kilometers of land, now known as the Eastern Ural Radioactive Trace (EURT). The matter was covered up, and few either inside or outside Russia were aware of the full scope of the disaster until 1980.[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster

"Nuclear is the clear path forward if we are thinking pragmatically about going carbon neutral." Maybe for Poland and if you live where there isn't much sun, wind, geothermal or hydro possibilities.

−12