Okay so I was scrolling through the PSL’s info page, and it is stated that they are to denuclearize the power grid. Why is this? I was under the impression that Nuclear Energy is the much more sustainable and frankly realistic source of power–even without Molten Salt Reactors and Thorium based ones.
Im finding it most orgs tend to stay away from Nuclear energy due to fear mongering from fossil fuel industries; Thus its stain in the imperial core, reaching from liberals to western "leftists". But I am surprised the PSL, a radical organization, is anti-nuclear.
FYI this isn't a deal breaker or anything--they seem to be taking the lead for vanguard party--just was curious of the stance on nuclear energy.
like I said we have about 90 years left until its all gone… so how long is this base supposed to last?
I have no idea where you got your 90 years number from, since every major source I’ve found has listed 200 as the bare minimum, with wild ranges going up to several tens of thousands of years.
Plus with advancement in fusion reactors and fusion technology, cold reactors, and water uranium distillation; pure uranium fired reactors are quickly becoming obsolete.
you’ve been reading too many witchcraft magazines about what the future might be like if we give Monty Burns a few more trillion dollars.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx#:~:text=The world’s present measured resources,is normal for most minerals.
That is if we only mine the current known concentrations of uranium, discover no more deposits, do not recycle spent uranium, put no effort into seawater distillation, do not supplement with thorium or plutonium, among a variety of other factors. The source is not stating that that is all we have left. That is stating the bare minimum “dependency status”, they even mention that other elements like aluminum and cobalt have much lower dependency years, but we are at no risk of running out for the foreseeable future.
Also I’m sure your ideas are much more sustainable right? Natural gas and fracking? Might as well just set fire to the global south and use nukes in Antarctica at that point.
seawater is another dumb one, it cost like $4 million a pound to extract it from seawater, it’s cool that we can do that I guess, but its not realistic, again they looked at it in the 50’s said it was dumb then stopped looking at it, anyother more dreams from the Jetsons? How about nuclear plants that don’t meltdown, don’t produce/recycle waste, don’t require 60 years decommissioning time… I don’t think I’ve heard of a bomb proof one but now that Zaporizhzhia, europes largest nuclear plant is getting shot at, I’m sure we’ll hear all sorts of nonsense about how if we give Monty burns more money we can make nuclear plants explosion proof too. Granted when we receive the estimate it will be ten times more expensive than renewables like wind and solar but thats okay we’ll just build the same old model we’ve been building since the 1950’s like we always do
Man, I want some of what you’re smoking. That seems like the good stuff.
its just normal weed my dealer said its the cream strain, but idk shit was insanely cheap but ever since legalization people have been selling weed for corn prices and the dispensaries are like buying weed in alaska in the 80’s like $100 for an eighth made with human growth hormone and Raid