General Discussions

[kruddler]

True, if you could jump in the DeLorean and go back to the 50s, going nuclear would have been better regarding climate change than fossil fuels. But if we can't get the flux capacitor to work properly and we have to deal with the here and now, then we can use renewables that weren't around in the 50s. Best of both worlds.

By the way, the Commodore 64 analogy is perfect for those who want to argue that we should just assume that renewables and batteries and the recycling of them is static. Just like the Commodore 64, as the years roll on the developments in a growth sector will make the current technology look very Commodore 64-like.

Your first paragraph is evidence that you don't have any facts to add to the debate, just emotive BS.

Your second paragraph is showing your ignorance. Moore's law - a mircrochip doubles the amount of transistors it can fit on it (or it halves its size) and halves its cost every 2 years. This is how computers get more and more powerful consistently.
However, we have almost reached the end game on this - 2025 some people think is the end.
Batteries, while different technologies have seen similar advances......but also are coming to an end with the capabilities available.

To assume a similar linear (or better) progression from here for the next few decades is extremely naive, and not possible.

So you can attempt that path, knowing the end game will not be what you require.....and waste however many years in the meantime or just skip to something that works better already, now.

Spend some time educating the public and demystifying nuclear power and we'll all be better off.

No flux capacitor required.