• havokdj@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I completely agree with everything you said except for ONE little thing:

      You are grossly misrepresenting how far that can is kicked down, for the worse. It doesn’t kick it down a couple thousand years, it kicks it down for if DOZENS of millennia assuming we stay at the current energy capacity. Even if we doubled or tripled it, it would still be dozens of millennia. First we could use the uranium, then when that is gone, we could use thorium and breed it with plutonium, which would last an incomprehensibly longer time than the uranium did. By that point, we could hopefully have figured out fusion and supplement that with renewable sources of energy.

      The only issue that would stem from this would be having TOO much energy, which itself would create a new problem which is heat from electrical usage.

    • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are plenty of safer, quicker technologies available. Repairing the US grid would give us 20% more power.

      • pillars_in_the_trees@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There are no available technologies safer than nuclear, unless you’re talking about the construction. You’re literally more likely to fall and hit your head on a solar panel. Which can be serious electrical hazards for firefighters if you’re ever unlucky enough to get caught in a house fire.