Ask Science
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
view the rest of the comments
Realistically, we would probably use it. Should we? Well, first of, the idea that there would be 0 risk is just unrealistic. Everything carries a certain risk, no matter how small. So the question is: how big is the risk, and what are the potential consequences. Problem is with nuclear, even if the risk is small, the potential consequences if something does go wrong is the problem here.
But OK, let's say we managed to somehow magically get the risk to 0. Still no. It's a finite resource. It would just simply kick the can down the road. Only so much nuclear fuel will be available. We will probably start fighting wars over it again. Enough is enough. We're on a trajectory that, while it's still much slower than it should be, can bring us to a future where the vast majority of the energy we consume is renewable. Let's not fuck it up. Let's properly cure our addiction instead of using meth to get rid of our heroin addiction.