Greens keep ignoring energy density and therefore land use to make the case for a "greener" 100% wind/solar/hydro grid
Greens keep ignoring energy density and therefore land use to make the case for a "greener" 100% wind/solar/hydro grid
You're viewing a single thread.
@Atom Nuclear is green energy. The problem green activists have is the massive cost of nuclear plants, the timescale of getting them active, and the security concerns of them merely existing.
Your post is not only deeply & deliberately misleading (that's not what the comic says, even remotely), it's also wrong and stupid. Well done.
Plus the still unsolved waste problem.
I thought vitrifying and subsequent underground storage is a pretty effective method of storage for many isotopes? Obviously it isn't perfect, but it means no liquids to leak atleast.
Also recent advances in fusion are exciting, though obviously only time will tell if they'll get anywhere or just fizzle out...
I am but a humble student, but the silly thought does cross my mind, has anyone wondered what the consequences of dumping nuclear waste into a volcano would be?
There are already prospects for long time storage, and some of these are in various stages of development. Finland may be furthest ahead. Even Norway (who's not even considering nuclear power at the moment) is looking into converting their temporary storage of research waste to a permanent solution. Stable geological conditions are critical, but it's technically very doable.
Even if all the costs and timescales could be reduced, the security concerns are significant. On top of that even the entire nuclear energy operation requires a (literal) higher degree of education than most alternatives, which is a ton of human resources to stay active, let alone started.
Now we also live in a world where wind/solar/hyrdo have proven their efficacy and reliability, which we weren't really at even 20 years ago. (Well hydro has been around.)