Comments by "Doncarlo" (@doujinflip) on "Why has the PRICE of ENERGY skyrocketed? - VisualPolitik EN" video.

  1. Not to mention 50~100 years of production followed by thousands of years of nuclear waste afterward ☢️
    2
  2. Problem is the radioactivity generated remains dangerous for thousands of years. Fossil fuels could be phased out and the climate rebalanced in that time, while a single incident with nuclear waste can render whole areas permanently inhabitable.
    1
  3. Defenses against earthquakes have been engineered into structures for centuries, the danger is really only for those who use nothing more than mortar for their brick/cement block builds.
    1
  4. There's also pumped-storage hydro, which can pump water back up the reservoir when prices are cheap for use later when demand surges as the sun goes down. Any elevation difference can be considered to transform into this energy storage solution, even abandoned mines.
    1
  5. Already takes another 20 years to design and build, and thousands of years of toxic waste, all for 50~100 years of production.
    1
  6. Depends on the local geography too. A shore with a steep dropoff won't see nearly as much swell as one leading towards a vast expanse of shallow flats.
    1
  7. i.e. Their plan is to kick the can down the road and hope somebody will be able to recycle it later on... while the can is full of toxic waste and not getting any younger ☢️
    1
  8. Nuclear is expensive and has been rising in costs. It's likely cheaper to use wind and solar, with excesses stored in pumped-hydro projects.
    1
  9. If you conveniently ignore thousands of years of radioactive waste it produces. We still haven't figured out how to fully reprocess all the waste we have now.
    1
  10. And what of the waste it produces which remains dangerous for thousands of years? We haven't figured out how to safely reprocess the ones we have now, and back then we weren't trying to replace every fossil fuel plant in the world.
    1