Comments by "David Aspinall" (@yt.personal.identification) on "How fear of nuclear power is hurting the environment | Michael Shellenberger" video.

When they claim 'zero emissions' it ignores attaining the fuel and disposal of waste to make the claim. Sure if we ignore these aspects it sounds great...but are we all so stupid we just ignore it when falling for the marketing. We know that advanced civilisation will harness the power of the sun...then claim something else is the way to go 🤯
2
@imthedarknight-8755 Who said solar panels? Even if we are, then new methods of manufacture have and are being developed. (See CSIRO printable panels) Mining, refinement, transport, waste management - none of what you said changes the fact that claiming nuclear power is 'clean' is intentionally refusing to consider the entire process. Toxic waste that will continue to radiate for thousands of years. This is not 'clean for the environment, no matter how you try to shot down every possible alternative. None of the process of solar panels is more toxic than nuclear waste. None of what you said changes the flaws of nuclear energy production
1
@gameragodzilla Nuclear waste is the worst outcome. Name a worse biproduct from power production. Saying 'mine is best' isn't enough to convince me. I am open to being convinced, but this discussion always goes silent at the toxic waste - it seems we are supposed to be sold on the 'no green house gas' propaganda, and stop asking question with that. Even in this video, he brushes over the toxic waste issue, as if it is irrelevant - intentionally.
1
@gameragodzilla Yours is a great argument for cleaning up manufacturing process waste handling in a better way. It shouldn't be used to justify creating an even more dangerous waste that we are willing to store for hundreds of future generations to deal with. Do you actually believe that they can guarantee containment for the entire time it is necessary? It is a rhetorical question, because anyone who is honest knows the answer. How much storage will be needed if this is the long term solution to the world's energy needs?
1
@gameragodzilla Then wait until the waste is practically usable, not theoretically usable. And find better ways to recover resources - rather than continuing to just say "we deal with this waste, but not that waste, so this is better" Deal with all the waste in the best way possible. Resorting to attempts to belittle in order to sound superior and cover for your dogmatic attachment loses credibility. This conversation was going so well...
1
@gameragodzilla I was willing to be convinced. I came here to learn after all, but your best points are "we collect the waste and will get around to it later" backed up with "your ignorant if you don't agree with me". I will respectfully choose to agree to disagree.
1
@gameragodzilla You claim I over estimate how dangerous nuclear waste is - and then call ME disingenuous. How long is it dangerous to life? What quantities become dangerous? They don't collect it and store because they just like clean up after themselves. I was hoping to learn if my knowledge was out dated. It seems your not qualified to help.
1