deleted by creator

Just wait until they learn about Daemons

The problem is that while personal renewables exist, they’re still pretty expensive and are largely untested at scale. We’re in that stage that computers went through in the late 90s, where it’s an expensive investment that is likely to be obsolete before the year is over.

Not many people would be excited to spend ~$30K outfitting a building with solar panels, turbines and batteries only to learn that they need to be replaced in 2-3 years.

The technology is promising, but it’s not ready for mass adoption yet. We need a stopgap

special waste management is doing a lot of heavy lifting

Yeah, I suppose it is. Although I would argue leaving the waste to future generations is definitely not what we’re doing. Basically, we’re just putting it in a deep hole. Once that underground storage is full it never needs to be opened again. There isn’t any shortage of radioactive elements underground that exist naturally, creating a man-made radioactive pocket deep underground isn’t all that different.

Not having enough power and more power failures isn’t such a bad trade-off

The power that gets sent out over the grid does a lot more that charging your iPhone or powering your computer. For example: Electric vehicles(including public transit) relies on it, food preservation relies on maintaining constant refrigeration which would lead to even more food waste, and if a hospital loses power for even a couple minutes there are real lives at stake.

Hi, pro-nuclear here,

That’s the eventual ideal, but energy storage technology isn’t there yet. The biggest issue facing renewables currently is the ability to maintain a base load demand that is increasing faster and faster each year.

Currently, the cheapest way we have to store energy is to store it chemically, in the form of coal, petroleum, or fissle fuel. Of these, the fissle option is by far the best. It’s by far the most energy-dense, doesn’t release any carbon into the atmosphere when used, and the amount of waste it produces is dangerous, but miniscule in comparison. All the high level waste ever produced since the late 50s could fit in a single building.

It’s not realistic to fully replace everything with renewables until some very difficult engineering problems are solved. So our choices right now are:

• build more renewables

Pros: getting cheaper and more efficient but worse than current tech, no carbon pollution

Cons: experience more power failures as it cannot meet current energy demands

• build a coal/petroleum plant

Pros: very cheap and very efficient

Cons: accelerate climate change, increase pollution

• build a nuclear plant

Pros: can easily meet base load demands, very efficient, no carbon pollution

Cons: expensive, special waste management is required.

As things stand now, I would like to replace aging petroleum power plants with nuclear while continuing to build more and more renewables. Then, once we’ve either found a way to reduce energy demand or improve storage, start to phase out the nuclear plants