What "environmental impacts"? A properly designed reactor is clean, and the byproducts can be used in other reactors. The waste can be collected in a small area until we decide a final disposal plan. The easiest one is to load it on a rocket to the sun. The best overall plan is, when we have nanotechnology perfected, we can take all waste apart atom by atom and make new power plants, cars, or whatever.
Chernobyl was the worst possible case for a badly engineered nuclear plant, and it didn't hurt that many people. Plants and animals still grow in the area that was cordoned off.
If you want power, there are trade offs. Even "free" energy costs a lot of money and environmental damage to create the extraction devices, such as solar panels or windmills. Just look at everything it cost to build Hoover Dam to collect "free" hydroelectric power. Men died in constructing that thing. A river was redirected. Fish died.
For the amount of power generated compared to all of the costs, I think nuclear is the way to go for now. Fusion energy will be better, but that's in the future.
I think fusion energy and nanotechnology will solve a lot of our problems, other than the ones that more trials, convictions, and executions of the guilty will fix.
There isn't many people on this forum who ACTUALLY get super butthurt over a meme. This is a place of discussion and you'll find there are people on here that have researched so many different topics, you're bound to learn something from them. If not, it may drive you to research something you otherwise wouldn't have -- OR someone randomly reading the comments, like myself, to learn and research new topics.
What "environmental impacts"? A properly designed reactor is clean, and the byproducts can be used in other reactors. The waste can be collected in a small area until we decide a final disposal plan. The easiest one is to load it on a rocket to the sun. The best overall plan is, when we have nanotechnology perfected, we can take all waste apart atom by atom and make new power plants, cars, or whatever.
Chernobyl was the worst possible case for a badly engineered nuclear plant, and it didn't hurt that many people. Plants and animals still grow in the area that was cordoned off.
If you want power, there are trade offs. Even "free" energy costs a lot of money and environmental damage to create the extraction devices, such as solar panels or windmills. Just look at everything it cost to build Hoover Dam to collect "free" hydroelectric power. Men died in constructing that thing. A river was redirected. Fish died.
For the amount of power generated compared to all of the costs, I think nuclear is the way to go for now. Fusion energy will be better, but that's in the future.
I think fusion energy and nanotechnology will solve a lot of our problems, other than the ones that more trials, convictions, and executions of the guilty will fix.
Keep the post!
There isn't many people on this forum who ACTUALLY get super butthurt over a meme. This is a place of discussion and you'll find there are people on here that have researched so many different topics, you're bound to learn something from them. If not, it may drive you to research something you otherwise wouldn't have -- OR someone randomly reading the comments, like myself, to learn and research new topics.