The *other side of the argument

Nuclear energy is terrible has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

T.A.R.D.I.S. underground with the leaky nuke waste.

This is absurd. Current pollution could wipe out our speices and maybe all the animals... but the planet would survive and could replenish. Cover the place in radiation for 500 million years and its screwed.

I'm not against new forms like the end of the video talks about but sticking the nuke drug into the problem with the hopes that maybe someday we will have a treatment is a stupid crack pipe dream.

First up, it's not 500 million years. Nuclear waste (typically Plutonium 239) has a half life of around 24000 years, an eyeblink geologically. Even if it wouldn't be too flash for life as we know it for a while, the planet will be fine, and life will recover.

But yeah, there are undeniably problems with nuclear energy, which are addressed in the related video (http://videosift.com/video/Nuclear-energy-is-terrible).

We have essentially 3 choices:

1: ditch our energy rich lifestyle and go back to an agrarian economy with no cars, internet or whatever. This also means ditching lots of really nice stuff, like medical technology (drugs and MRI machines don't grow from pixie dust). Pretty unlikely, IMO.

2: Accept that the eco-system is basically fucked and learn to live with climate change. Depressingly, this is probably the most likely scenario.

3: Invest heavily into other energy sources. And, like it or not, that's got to include some form of nuclear. Renewable (solar, wind, tide) etc, will help, but they won't cover all of our energy needs and they have their own problems. So ideally, it's fusion, but practically, thorium seems the next best bet.

Burning coal releases more radioactive material in the environment than nuclear power. [1] [2]

Fusion is well within our reach. It just doesn't have the funding (and therefore the fast research/development cycle) because the oligarchs are not done selling us fossil fuels yet.

I'm very pro-nuclear, but the money-where-your-mouth-is test is "what if it was in your backyard?"

My answer to that one is: Sure! Especially if I get free power bills for life, like how landowners with cell towers get $$$ or free cell service, etc...

Bullshit. If we actually put our foot down and put up enough solar panels we would be golden. But there is no one who wants to finance that now. No one in the big sector wants to because they have their money elsewhere like oil, so that leaves us consumers to figure it out and so we need to tech to become cheap enough for consumers to pick it up. There is zero reason why solar energy would not solve everything on a technical level. It just requires a hefty investment.

That's not what I've read, but I'd be interested to read any sources you have for this claim.

If you're going to post something like that, back it up.

http://fusion.net/story/129075/elon-musk-reminded-everyone-last-night-how-little-land-would-be-needed-to-power-the-u-s-with-solar/

Excellent. Now we're getting somewhere. By god, I will drag people kicking and screaming into making actual arguments with real data if it kills me.

That looks interesting. Does it account for transmission losses? What about areas like the UK with high energy consumption but little sunlight?

I havn't dived enough into it. I saw the "if we covered only this blip of the us, we could power the entire nation" argument a while ago and this is what I got from a quick google search. Not in a position to explore solar power myself as a means so I haven't been paying that much attention to it.

Easy now, ol' Elon admitted a few days after that he over hyped his power packs and the whole "save the world with solar" pitch. His number didn't account for numerous problems ans was a perfect situation only.

I kinda agree with jmd in that the people with the resources to effect change are comfortable where they are since they are making all the money and do nothing risky to make it. Changing gears would require some effort to hire people to do the work...

So you need to understand Exponential Decay a bit better. Try http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/beyond/articles/ExpDecay/decay1.html
Then you discount how long people would be producing it. Sure, its not millions but that wasn't the point, just an exaggeration to help make the point, life can come back from carbon, nuclear waste is a destroyer of worlds.

Actually, I understand exponential decay just fine thanks, and it's still nowhere close to 500 million years.

Besides, nuclear waste is a localised problem. Sure, it's pretty goddamn awful wherever it is, but carbon is a global problem. We can decide that say, Australia, should be a nuclear wasteland, and the rest of the world would be pretty much ok. It'd suck for the barrier reef though.

Radiation isn't really anything close to a "destroyer of worlds". Even around Chernobyl, there are still plants and animals living there.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/wildlife-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-bears-wolves-rare-horses-roam-forests-1477124