(March 12, 2022 at 2:18 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: Allow me to play devil's advocate a bit here. (For rhetorical purposes.)
First, we can acknowledge that, with climate change on our plate, the benefits outweigh the risks of nuclear power. But there are still risks. Chernobyl. Fukushima nuclear disaster.
And isn't solar activity a concern? (I'm asking. Because I don't really know the science involved.) Isn't it bad if we install mini nuclear plants all over the place and then get hit with a barrage of solar activity? Couldn't that lead to potential meltdowns all over the place?
Again. I'm just being rhetorical here, and maybe hoping to learn something.
The thing with Chernobyl and Fukushima is that they were built over 50 years ago by different standards and levels of technology. Newer nuclear power plants are much safer, and the new ones are even supposed to eat existing nuclear waste instead of creating it - but that one is still in the development stage.
I guess the real problem with renewables (at least today) is that they still need an oil economy to be made. You can't make wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, green cars, and nuclear power plants without burning the oil, so you can't really shun it.
Another problem is that trucks and ships can not be electric. The battery for the truck would be too heavy and it would take too long to charge it - but maybe they could go on hydrogen.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
