Environment & Energy

...of antinukes here. I often refer to them as "arsonists complaining about forest fires," given their specious line of whining that "nuclear takes too long to build," and other bullshit.

We have some who like to gloat that nuclear energy is not going to save the world, a feature of their selective attention. While the statement is technically true - the damage done by the antinuclear cults is now irreversible - nuclear remains the best tool available to address what can be addressed. It's not like these asshats have something better to offer.

Nuclear energy must not prove that it can save the world to be the best tool for limiting the rate of destruction of the planetary atmosphere. It only needs to be the best tool, which it is.

The tritium in used nuclear fuel - resulting from ternary fission - is one of the least valuable components in it. No one has built a working fusion reactor capable of exergy extraction. The actinides and lanthanides, as well as many of the main group fission products are thus all more valuable. The main use for tritium now is as a tracer and a sourse of ³He. Used nuclear fuel is not actually "waste" as our "but her emails" media insists. It is a highly valuable resource for future and wiser generations.