We are not.
Your argument is invalid.
Breeder reactors exist, russia probably having the most advanced technology in use and production of nuclear power in this manner. The technologies of uranium extraction from seawater were discovered, but still work is needed for them to be more efficient.
Its more about the existing technologies maturing for use or some new findings to make them more efficient. It is still needed, and by using other more available today and less complicated power sources the perspectives are delayed. But carbon burning will have to end, and there is a hole that can be taken by new generations of nuclear power plants.
Why would people chose the most expensive option that takes the longest to be available? By the time this reactors became online, they could not even sell their power at profit anymore.
It is not the most expensive option. Look at Koreans.
How will you resolve the intermittency problem? You need a reliable source of energy, producing a lot of power, in long time. Else you will have to cut power to someone.
There are also ugly sides of photovoltaic power and wind power installations. Basically everything what human makes isnt too good for natural environment, is disrupting it with example being waste produced with used wind turbines only top of the mountain.
Its like with that bitcoin, you may see slightly bigger number on the chart, but its not very green.
Yes it is by far, and I wrote earlier why.
By building more renewables, which are a lot easier and faster to deploy than a nuclear reactor. Do you even read what I wrote or think about any of this? How fast do you think you can build a nuclear reactor, excluding all the political drama you would have to go trough because no one wants that thing in his backyard…
You care about the waste of used photovoltaic and wind parks, which is maybe an issue caused by some implementations of it, but not necessarily a fundamental problem of the technology, but somehow manage to ignore the piles of extremely radioactive waste that all nuclear reactors produce, that will cause problems for tens of thousands of years?
I wonder, is there a topic in this world you have an actually informed opinion on?
1 Like
Did you even know what a breeder reactor or MOX fuel was before writing that?
By building more renewables, which are a lot easier and faster to deploy than a nuclear reactor.
And have you even considered the impossibility of generating energy from sun at night, or wind farms not generating when there is not enough wind when writing this? What about places where you dont have enough sun in winter? Or not enough wind thruout year? You will put a battery in every house, battery that will cost a lot to produce and become waste in few years, to store energy that can be effectively gradually freed alternatively from fision materials in process that doesnt produce as much waste?
Looks like its you who doesnt have a clue about energy grid.
Also your bitcoin is slowly killing the planet anyway, but who you are to care about that.
I really get a kick out of this. Who would have ever imagined environmentalists lobbying for nuclear power? It brings a big smile to my face.
1 Like
Yes, and they too produce piles of radioactive waste.
What makes sense and what doesn’t is obviously highly dependent on the location. But it’s relatively well known in advance how much electricity you produce at what times with various forms of renewable energy plants. Geothermal energy or hydro power doesn’t for example depend on the weather and delivers band energy. There are also some highly controllable forms of renewable energy production like biogas.
And some highly controllable energy sinks like Bitcoin miners that let you run a sizable over production without losing money, but that can shutdown at a moments notice to loosen the strain on the grid are also a part of the mix. Doesn’t have to be Bitcoin, but it’s an ideal choice because the miners going offline in one region has zero consequences for the network, which might not be the case for other energy sinks like for example aluminum production that has effects on downstream industries.
I’m pretty sure I know more about those things than you. You sound like you just parrot opinions of other people you read about in the news or on reddit and not from an actual understanding of the topic.
Yeah I hear it will consume all the energy of the world by 2020
Actually it’s part of the solution to a renewable future.
This doesn’t come from “environmentalists”. It probably comes from the nuclear lobby who use the current green wave to advertise for their tech again, but it usually gets picked up by people who are critical against renewable energy or just parrot arguments against it. Like Nana here is a perfect example.
If anyone is an “environmentalist” here it’s probably me, even though I now get accused of destroying the planet because that’s the latest stab against the magic internet money I’m in favor of. It feels pretty strange.
EDIT:
Just in case it wasn’t clear what I mean by flexible energy sink that allows the building of overproduction, here is a real world example: Bitcoin miners are helping the Texas grid brace for winter storm impact
Environmentalists? Who are they? I am never calling myself one. I am a creature that desnt really care about planet, together with all others living on it.
What drives people ultimately is other people as consoomers, efficiency and anthroposphere, not the planet. Planet will stay here, changed by us.
We already ruined it. It will never be the same as before, even when humans vanish one day from it. The atmosphere got changed, life got changed, space got changed. But who is to judge us? Our children? They will change it even more, beyond our comprehension, it will be their survival test and we went thru enough to not fail easily.
Its naive to think that we are really helping the planet. We are ruining it in many new ways, and we dont care.
Perhaps I misinterpreted this. Could you elaborate why it will have to end?
Because mining will have to end someday as carbon runs out, and there is not enough forests to burn for humanity at this point.
And I’m curious if that is a serious question and you really don’t know or if you just want to see if Nana knows 
Yeah ok, she doesn’t
Wait… run out of carbon? Seriously? Should I put that on my calendar?
1 Like
You think the problem is that the carbon is gone if we burn it? lol
Coal, gas, oil, it is non renevable and will run out in few generations when we will keep it burning. We have to.
You will not live so long.
Although that is kind of a problem, it’s not the reason why CO2 emissions are bad. You do know that right?
I wrote carbon, because you actually oxidize it by burning. To get heat.
Well, to be fair, her outlook doesn’t seem to be environmentalist, so it isn’t as funny that she likes nuclear.
1 Like
More nihilist to be honest
Its only bad for some humans at this point that the planet can get warmer, but it was warmer before.
Humans care about anothroposphere as I wrote. Their living space. they will manage to adapt it to changed climate, gradually.
Bitcoin doesnt help it tho. Its a nonsensical thing.