Yea, nuclear power is actually better environmentally than coal. Obviously in a perfect world we would derive all our power from green energy sources, like wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc. But at this point that is not yet feasible. So the obvious solution is a) keep working on new renewable energy (like the bladeless wind turbines that generate electricity by shaking) and carbon capture technology and b) use nuclear energy in the interim. Oh and also keep working on better ways to use or store nuclear waste. Anyway this post goes into more detail about nuclear power:
(via: Just Sock Thoughts)
Sorry to spoil the party, but Thorium Reactors are non existant. This concept emerged in the 1950ies an never got out of testsite use. There is not even one Powerplant running with this technology, and even if it was already running in test sites, building those plants would take 10-20 years and will cost billions. Billions better invested in now available reusable energy sources like wind and solar.
You are very much missing the point. It’s a comparison between nuclear and fossil fuels. Obviously renewable is the goal but that tech also needs to come a lot further before it’s efficient as well. So it’s a matter of “lesser of two evils”
And no doubt half the reason thorium reactors never made it out of concept was either big oil or fear or both.
Oh, is that so? Dang. I knew I shouldn’t trust everything I read on the Internet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
It must be nice to be so loudly wrong without the common sense to do a quick Google search first. Thinky pains are just awful, right?