• smegforbrains
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Hers an interesting article on the dangers of Thorium reactors, including nuclear proliferation concerns: https://www.nature.com/articles/492031a

    Here’s an article detailing why nuclear power production is not climate neutral. There a lot of CO2 emissions involved in nuclear power production: https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315

    Fossil fuel is IMHO no alternative and will only play a minimal role after 2038. Most of the countries, that have pledged to become climate neutral by 2050 will build new nuclear reactors to achieve this. So there will probably be enough energy to go around and Germany can buy such energy if the transition to 100% renewables did not work out as planned. But if it works out we will have a viable way to produce energy in climate neutral way without the hazards that accompany nuclear power production. If this can be proved to work, other countries would be able to emulate this strategy. IMHO this is an opportunity we can not let go to waste.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Every technology has pros and cons. The rational thing to do is to weigh those against each other instead of simply pointing out what the negatives are. Meanwhile, there are also CO2 emissions involved in producing solar panels or wind turbines.

      The reality is that majority of western countries continue to miss their pledges to transition from fossil fuels. Given past precedent, I would bet against Germany accomplishing its stated goals by 2038. IMHO gambling with the fate of humanity for ideological reasons is unethical.