If you believe wind turbines are happy magical devices that deliver free energy...
Just to be clear: I do believe wind, solar and other renewable energy sources are necessary and most countries still have potential to increase their share and reduce dependency on fossil fuels.
Just don't tell me 100% wind and power is possible.
@kravietz but that's the basic problem, science in #renewableEnergy is concerned about (although in discussions it's mostly limited to classic energy storage and not other solutions like #PowerToX or even intelligent consumption control, sociological approaches...). So it's not like people working on renewable energy are not thinking about.
Yes, I've read studies of numerous 100% RE models with a simple assumption like "we just need to add 1 TWh of storage per year".
I absolutely don't mind the RE innovation as long as it doesn't turn into overzealous tribal war where low-carbon nuclear power plants are shut down... and replaced by fossil gas plants "because we need 24/7 electricity", as Germany and Belgium do all the time.
@kravietz i also don't mind if somebody would find a sufficient method of storing or taking care of the nuclear waste, it produces. ;)
You should really have done some actual research before using these decades-old Greenpeace cliches!
The reality of nuclear waste storage is simple and boringly safe:
1) it loses toxicity fast (down to 7% after 100 years)
2) it's produced in amounts so tiny that it can be stored in absolutely safe conditions
The photo below shows the whole 40 years of waste from the whole Swiss nuclear program:
.
@kravietz you heard of the federal German research program about nuclear storage, right?
Also, if you wan't to help me "getting up to date with the topic", why not poste some links to resources instead of posting a picture without context?
I'm honestly interested to change my mind if you can convince me by citing scientific sources i cannot find valid arguments against, or at least can name some trustworthy sources that present a different result.
They're inefficient, expensive, and dangerous precisely because they're primary purpose is *not* to provide cheap, clean, safe power.
The US military had 2 thorium salt test reactors in the late 40s or early 50s (can't recall the exact dates), but after years of research, they just couldn't find any way to get usable amounts of plutonium out of the decay chain, so they shuttered the whole program.
Don't blame nuclear power for the faults of nuclear weapons.
> hey're primary purpose is *not* to provide cheap, clean, safe power
This is by all means true about RBMK reactors. There's maybe 10 RMBK reactors in the world and all of them in Russia.
