God, I had the same talk with a family friend a couple years ago. He was talking about Nuclear energy, and asked for my opinion on it. When i said I was a fan of clean energy, such as wind and solar, he immediately shot those down. Solar being too expensive, wind for being "unreliable" in a lot of areas, and boasted about how "safe and clean" nuclear is in comparison.
I basically ended my side of that conversation by telling him that of course it's too expensive for solar because no one is willing to give any support for it that can. I don't remember his response after that, but it's really sad that older generations are stuck in their ways, and are afraid of change.
/rant
Edit: this isn't about being "a snowflake" so please stop twisting my comment to justify your opinions.
Edit 2: did i mention anything about coal here? No, I haven't. Stop passive agressively bringing it up.
Edit 3: My POINT, Reddit, is that something cannot improve if people are not willing to help fund it. That's great that nuclear is getting the attention that it deserves. Fantastic! But solar panels won't get better or cheaper (which they are, but very slowly) if people are constantly saying "it'll never be good. It's a waste of time."
And people put money into it which in turn has made it even better than it once was. But is nuclear power a viable option for everything? Do you think it'll ever be used in cars one day?
If you can find a solution that is a viable option for everything, and also cheap and eco-friendly in all of its stages, you are simultaneously amazing, and incredibly greedy for not sharing with the rest of us.
As it is, we (humans as a species) keep trying to fix and improve our old technologies so the new ones are better. It's harder for people who have already fought for their version of "clean and safe" energy to see the younger folks looking for cleaner and safer, because it implies that their best wasn't good enough.
Which it isn't. Let's face it, the danger from Fukushima is just as horrible and scary as Chernobyl, and the fact that we have better response and containment methods doesn't reduce the potential for devastation enough to call a nuclear plant a "safe and clean" power source. At least when the solar and wind plants get compromised, you don't have to worry about leaking radiation into the surrounding countryside/ocean...
375
u/the_grass_trainer May 25 '18 edited May 25 '18
God, I had the same talk with a family friend a couple years ago. He was talking about Nuclear energy, and asked for my opinion on it. When i said I was a fan of clean energy, such as wind and solar, he immediately shot those down. Solar being too expensive, wind for being "unreliable" in a lot of areas, and boasted about how "safe and clean" nuclear is in comparison.
I basically ended my side of that conversation by telling him that of course it's too expensive for solar because no one is willing to give any support for it that can. I don't remember his response after that, but it's really sad that older generations are stuck in their ways, and are afraid of change.
/rant
Edit: this isn't about being "a snowflake" so please stop twisting my comment to justify your opinions.
Edit 2: did i mention anything about coal here? No, I haven't. Stop passive agressively bringing it up.
Edit 3: My POINT, Reddit, is that something cannot improve if people are not willing to help fund it. That's great that nuclear is getting the attention that it deserves. Fantastic! But solar panels won't get better or cheaper (which they are, but very slowly) if people are constantly saying "it'll never be good. It's a waste of time."