Search Results
7/11/2025, 5:23:11 AM
>>715124747
You're overselling the downsides of wind and solar, but yeah, nuclear is the best option.
We should have gone all-in on nuclear 40 years ago, but the boomers were all pissing their pants after the cold war.
We don't even recycle our nuclear fuel. We could. Other countries do. Just the nuclear waste we have right now could power America for 100 years or something. And the resulting waste after doing that is far less radioactive. So you only have to store waste for 20 years or something instead of 200. Not to mention you don't have to mine new uranium.
The reason we don't do it is that recycling nuclear waste creates plutonium which is good for nukes. The boomers were afraid of nuclear proliferation while they already had enough nukes to destroy the world 500 times over.
Also it's cheaper to mine new uranium in America than to recycle it. Thanks capitalism. If doing the right thing costs more money then it can't be done.
You're overselling the downsides of wind and solar, but yeah, nuclear is the best option.
We should have gone all-in on nuclear 40 years ago, but the boomers were all pissing their pants after the cold war.
We don't even recycle our nuclear fuel. We could. Other countries do. Just the nuclear waste we have right now could power America for 100 years or something. And the resulting waste after doing that is far less radioactive. So you only have to store waste for 20 years or something instead of 200. Not to mention you don't have to mine new uranium.
The reason we don't do it is that recycling nuclear waste creates plutonium which is good for nukes. The boomers were afraid of nuclear proliferation while they already had enough nukes to destroy the world 500 times over.
Also it's cheaper to mine new uranium in America than to recycle it. Thanks capitalism. If doing the right thing costs more money then it can't be done.
Page 1