Originally Posted by
LoneStar32
Love this post right here. I’ve been saying for years that nuclear is the answer. There are some bad connotations associated with nuclear energy, some right fully deserved (like Futchuma). However technology of containing and disposing of nuclear waste has dramatically improved over the last couple decades (Futchuma was an old outdated plant that needed to be updated, current technologies would have prevented that disaster)
investing in Upgrading current nuclear facilities and building new ones is the key right now to reduce our carbon footprint. Maybe in another 100 years more clean energies will be more practical. But in the meantime if we are serious in reducing our carbon footprint, the only realistic answer is nuclear.
Fukushima was an example of nuclear safety following an incident. It was an old outdated plant that had a major failure. The plant was successfully shut down. The loss of life associated with that event was due to public panic, not released radiation. Not a single person was harmed from the plant itself. The stampede of people trying to get away was another story. It should have never got to that stage, but the ability to shut down an outdated plant safely is an example of why we should be using it. Modern plants are far more efficient, produce less waste, and have more safeguards in place.