>>11144475>>11144479you just posted the same guy, who works for someplace in Singapore, who claims that nuclear reactors are inferior to solar cells/wind turbines because "solar and wind are more reliable" (rofl) and "oh no no no maybe a nuclear accident can happen or oh no no no spent nuclear fuel facilities could have major failures"
his whole premise is pretty retarded and the fact that he works for some meme asian university is telling. wind and solar are not reliable because of the basic fact that the sun goes out at night and wind can stop sometimes. nuclear OTOH runs all the time whenever we want, and accidents only happen when the operators of the reactors fuck up, and nuclear waste 1) would only have a catastrophic failure in containing it if some ridiculous natural disaster happens but more likely 2) if a big human error happens...
and nuclear power plant issues only happen for the same reasons, but if we got smarter like not building fukujima on the coast of the ring of fire then it would be only vulnerable to human failures instead of natural disasters. and human failures can be eliminated
so if we just build nuclear reactors in places safe from natural disasters and work out systems that prevent human error, the whole thing is solved. we could have more than enough energy to stop emitting CO2, and with the excess energy we could do carbon capture to clean things up for good.
but NOOOOOO nuclear bad!!!! according to the vast majority of the population who also happen to be retards at science.
