[ SECRET POST #5888 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5888 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.




















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 41 secrets from Secret Submission Post #843.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

It's not fossil fuel based. It doesn't cause air pollution and global warming. The original post was talking about where the electricity for electric cars come from. Nuclear power is one answer to that question: it's a way to generate electricity for electric cars that doesn't involve fossil fuels and doesn't contribute significantly to global warming and air pollution.

Obviously, nuclear power also has problems. IMO those problems can be successfully managed and mitigated. I definitely think that nuclear is conclusively better than coal or gasoline, and replacing coal-based electric generation with nuclear-based electric generation is absolutely a positive change, even though at the same time you wouldn't want to power the entire electric system with nuclear (also IIRC nuclear and solar/wind are complementary to each other).

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

The thing is- isolating just the energy production of nuclear power plants from the huge, huuuge rats tail of the nuclear waste it produces is a faulty argument. It is a highly destructive energy source - just not during production (if everything goes well and there are not major accidents that is).

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

Even if you're very pessimistic about our ability to store nuclear waste, it's still a less pronounced problem than the negative externalities associated with fossil fuels especially coal.

Coal is a really bad fuel source in terms of pollution and we should absolutely prefer nuclear to it, even though nuclear also has big problems. We should prefer solar and wind to nuclear, but it's still a positive tradeoff to replace coal power with nuclear power.

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

But nobody, absolutely nobody ITT argued that coal was in any way shape or form a good thing??

Re: Fuck Elon Musk with a cactus

[(Anonymous)]

But what then is the argument?

If we agree that coal is bad then we should replace it. Where possible it should be replaced with solar or wind but there are technical reasons why it's difficult to replace 100% of coal with solar and wind - 1, there's fluctuation in how much energy is produced by solar and wind at different times, so it makes sense to have another energy source that's constant to provide baseline power; 2, putting solar and wind in place is more location-dependent than nuclear, and doesn't work everywhere; 3, we want to get off coal as quickly as possible and there's practical limits to how quickly we can increase solar and wind so it makes sense to build nuclear as well to speed up the transition.