Okay, heres the question part. Being that Solar and wind technologies do not have as high of a yield for energy, and considering in the resistance of the lines and the price of the grade of copper that will have to be used to connect the middle of barren land to populated areas, why cant people see that a nuclear plant would be a better solution, being that it gives a higher yield of power than solar and wind capacities, it can outperform hydroelectric plants, coal plants, and natural gas plants, We have facilities and protocols to protect and dispose of nuclear waste that is created, so why is there such a uproar when building a nuclear power plant, by environmentalists, when the waste produced for the people that use the power would be about the size of a small marble per household per year. so can we just use nuclear as our backbone and put solar and wind in remote areas for the people that are actually in remote areas, and power the rest of america with nuclear and produce 0 emissions from any plant.
btw im an electrical engineer, with an associates and bachelors degree in electrical engineering.
and to the disposal of nuclear waste, the government hollowed out a rather large mountain to store it in and arent using it. and the modern safety protocols are very well adapted, if you compare a modern nuclear facility to chernobyl, chernobyl was a nuclear facility with a tin roof that used sand or graphite…cant remember…to keep the nuclear reaction cool, nuclear facilities today have modern alarms, better detection equipment, better controls, better trained staff, and above all else there is more regulation involved than you can shake a stick at. the biggest cost of building a nuclear plant is litigation… why?!?
