i am delusionally bullish on uranium
maybe i’ve just been echochambered tho 
Discussion
No you should be. Energy density wins.
Are you still bullish after all that happened in Fukushima?
I like your enthusiasm 😬
Ehat fid actually happen in Fukushima? And more importantly, what is/was the actual fallout (pun intended) of the event? No scaremongering. just hard data. Ehat happened?
There was a reactor meltdown in 3 our of 4 buildings caused by a tsunami/earthquake.
You can read about the events on Wikipedia or whatever.
Huge amounts of soil and water were irradiated. Cleanup and Deconstruction will take around another 30years.
Please, Don't get me wrong.
The physics and engineering of nuclear power is awesome and one of humanity's greatest achievement.
I just think the risk/reward equation is completely off for many still running reactors.
Maintenance is a huge issue, spent fuel can't be recycled completely, new fuel rods are getting more expensive, the public often has to pay for decommissioning afterwards because of rigged, lobbied contracts.
-> It's not worth it.
As far as I know, there is currently no new and proven reactor design addressing these issues and also being non-expensive and time-consuming in construction.
Decentralized solar and wind power with adequate battery storage is the way
Technically you are correct. The key here is how many lives did one of the very few nuclear catastrophes that everybody points to actually take? What damages did it incur?
From what I know. the damage both to health and to property is disproportionally low to how much it is used as a scaremongering scapegoat. The same (perhaps) surprisingly) applies to Chernobyl. It's scary, but the actual damages were disproportionally low to what were the estimates at the time and to the public perception even today.
The economic side of the equation is a different thing, but that is a complex topic on it's own and I'll just note thst it's not entirely economical, but rather mostly political.
And regsrding the waste. that's yet another thing thst is almost irrelevant when we really break it down even though it is often repeated by anti-nuclear voices.
Regarding wind and solar, I would agree if a relevant energy storage solution was at hand, ehoch is not the case for the most part. Perhaps you can efucate me on that, but afaik, without a major breakthrough, those can only be complementary power sources and cannot replace stable ones.
Thank you for your follow-up.
I get your point now and mostly agree. The issue at hand is very complex, indeed.
I just hope everyone knew the implications of saying "I'm pro-nuclear."
Had some stupid arguments over it in the past... 😉
You were and you are right. Nuclear is the future unless there is a giant technological leap like room temp semiconductors, or some other energy storage advancement right around the corner. (which is possible, but highly unlikely)