There is plenty of future in fission in the near term. Most of our widespread reactor designs are based on solid fuel and uranium fuel cycles - low pressure/high temperature. Pressurised light water reactors were designed for submarines because it was quick to do, the guy who designed them never intended them for widespread civilian use scaled up. In the late 1960's they were already working on new fuel cycles using thorium and liquid fuel - indeed a prototype of one of these ran at Oak Ridge Laboratory for years until the Nixon administration shut down the program. This design is much safer. Thorium is far more common in the earths crust. It only needs a small amount of Uranium as a "kick" to start the reaction. Liquid fuel also doesn't degrade like solid fuel does and require reprocessing.
Thorium are an older model being reinvented. Not much has changed except supposed waste. They still enrich, and still produce waste. Is it more efficient, supposedly, what's being sold, but who knows or cares.
Yes nuclear is by far the best means. If you have competence and care. Renewables supplement the grid they don't replace it. Renewables simply burn more energy, costing more as the increased demand fuels consumption. They are fallible and break quickest. They are parts and maintenance and service heavy. Emitting far more than their absurd assumptions of wind, sun, water gives us electricity. Pure lies straight off the serpent's lips beguiling dumb Greta. Electricity comes from products requiring manufacture, how are they made. What impact do they have.
But electricity isn't viable for furnaces. It is a redundant method compared to fossil fuels. Burn a log or a lump of coal, no, the autistic's seethe, you need a solar power stove. It is the level of stupid today.
There is plenty of future in fission in the near term. Most of our widespread reactor designs are based on solid fuel and uranium fuel cycles - low pressure/high temperature. Pressurised light water reactors were designed for submarines because it was quick to do, the guy who designed them never intended them for widespread civilian use scaled up. In the late 1960's they were already working on new fuel cycles using thorium and liquid fuel - indeed a prototype of one of these ran at Oak Ridge Laboratory for years until the Nixon administration shut down the program. This design is much safer. Thorium is far more common in the earths crust. It only needs a small amount of Uranium as a "kick" to start the reaction. Liquid fuel also doesn't degrade like solid fuel does and require reprocessing.
Thorium are an older model being reinvented. Not much has changed except supposed waste. They still enrich, and still produce waste. Is it more efficient, supposedly, what's being sold, but who knows or cares.
Yes nuclear is by far the best means. If you have competence and care. Renewables supplement the grid they don't replace it. Renewables simply burn more energy, costing more as the increased demand fuels consumption. They are fallible and break quickest. They are parts and maintenance and service heavy. Emitting far more than their absurd assumptions of wind, sun, water gives us electricity. Pure lies straight off the serpent's lips beguiling dumb Greta. Electricity comes from products requiring manufacture, how are they made. What impact do they have.
But electricity isn't viable for furnaces. It is a redundant method compared to fossil fuels. Burn a log or a lump of coal, no, the autistic's seethe, you need a solar power stove. It is the level of stupid today.