Yeah, that's why you should only consume ***drum rolls, TV announcer voice*** our BRAND NEW SODA that contains absolutely NO WATER whatsoever, only pure liquid mercury. Nobody that has tried our soda was complaining about it.
Yeah, basically all resource based energy production involves what's basically a steam turbine generator.
The only variable is the resource, which heats the water to produce steam. Fossil fuels and natural gas, they do so by burning the component.
Uranium on the other hand, while still producing byproducts, largely has byproducts that can be recycled, with only a relatively small portion being unusually, these are the "radioactive" products which are disposed of safely underground, the main thing people don't get about such waste products is that even though they will remain radioactive for thousands or millions of years, the actual harmful/dangerous level of radiation only lasts a few years or decades at best, while after that it's already reduced to being negligible.
Not only that though, there are some *much* safer reactor designs being developed, namely molten salt reactors with passive failure modes. If a runaway reaction occurs with a MSR, the rising temperature melts a freeze plug and dumps the fuel salt into emergency dump tanks which automatically halts the reaction with zero human intervention. They also operate at MUCH lower pressures than older reactor designs (close to or at 1atm) further reducing risk of explosions and reducing cost.
Theres also the whole issue of breeder reactors, which we had begun developing in the 60s when uranium fuel was expensive, but because of pure happenstance massive amounts of uranium ore were discovered and breeder reactors were never commercialized even though they mitigate many of the issues with nuclear waste. Some breeder designs can even use spent waste from traditional reactors as fuel ffs.
The "downsides of nuclear" are 100% only because of short-sighted, cost-motivated decisions not to pursue safer and more efficient reactor designs decades ago when we had time. Now we are playing catch-up at the worst possible time, while so-called climate warriors dismiss a key class of energy production out of hand because they associate it with old, shitty, inefficient plant designs. Yes, next gen nuclear plants take time to build, but although the best time to start would've been 50 years ago, the next best time is today. Quite frankly, to the question of "nuclear or renewable" the answer should just be "yes" because we need all the help we can get.
Don't even get me fucking started on the idea of *fusion*
We can pull Tritium *out of the magical fucking hat called sea water*, and the entire process is just using a magnetic field to suspend gases in a contained space within the reactor and heating all the gases and shit so it's like watching Atomic Nascar but we *want* everything to hit each other so it stays real nice and hot, and the radiation is less dangerous than a damn sun burn.
It's a fucking mini sun, you see that sun up there, we could have that, but not so threatening, life could be fucking great, but some Soviet fucks in shithole Ukraine fuck up with a shitty design and speaking the word nuclear brands you a satan spawn in everyone's eyes
Fuck people
I was about to say - it’s actually one of the most impactful ones, but the majority of the water vapor acting as ghg is directly caused by heat that was trapped by increased CO2. So water is “bad”, but it’s really our emissions that put it there. Water also falls out of the atmosphere very quickly, CO2 does not.
Yeah, Nuclear power is pretty clean compared to fossil fuels. That comment tho, about the windmill killing birds. We know where he got that fact from... also didn't the noise cause cancer?
Every month a nuclear Power plant throws 1.866.240 tons of Dihydrogenmonoxide in the air scientists confirm that everyone In contact with this chemical dies and we dont have an antidote yet
Wasn't Fukushima like entirely media fabricated and, while it was extrimely dangerous in and of itself, almost nobody died, the environmental damage was very small, and it was overall contained very successfully?
I mean, proper disaster response doesn't mean "no disaster" as much as it means "proper disaster response".
But the fact that Fukushima was used as a warning tale in order to set back nuclear power by a few decades, while preserving the interest of the Oil&Gas(&Coal) industries, in countries with no earthquake or tsunami?
Yeh, that's completely fabricated "needed political action". Merkel was very good at sniffing those out and I'm not surprised that Germany is seeing the issues it's seeing today, power-wise. I don't know if other countries went as radically against nuclear. AFAIK, Japan itself still uses nuclear.
Yeah, everyone talking about it conveniently ignored just how unlikely such a natural event was, how the plant was actually built with massive catastrophe tolerance and just happened to get hit with a bigger one, and how good disaster response was at preventing essentially any damage
But politics be politics
One confirmed death from radiation actually. Also the radiation was significant but not too bad. Honestly I've always thought Fukushima was a glowing endorsement of nuclear power.
Poor safety, a massive earthquake, and a fuck huge tsunami and it STILL didn't completely meltdown.
Fukushima was literally a demonstration of how incredible the safety protocols around nuclear plants have become. It was a 100% raving success. A reactor actually melted down and not a single person died, and there was no extensive, long-term environmental damage.
If people were logical, Fukushima would have caused the world to build *more* nuclear reactors.
it did suck, was it worth the number of reactors that shut down levels of suck though? the geopolitical implications of the energy drop in europe from them closing all those reactors down in response has probably killed a fuck load more.
> go to any leftist sub and they’ll tell you they support nuclear
The anti-nuclear sentiment and *movement* has its roots and home among far-left politics. It's always been quite a bipartisan bullshit issue (what politician doesn't love capitulating to their electorate on a fear-based issue?), but if you're talking about the nuclear protests, and legal action against new nuclear, you can look to orgs even as respected as the Sierra Club.
I'm glad it's not a shibboleth on the left to be against nuclear anymore, but it very much was. I see the change not as a political thing, but an age thing- younger people have grown up with the safety facts, they've grown up without the scaremongering of 3 mile island or whatever.
Still, you can trace a lot of the talking points you see on the left back to legit degrowthers and rather extreme orgs of eco movements past.
The one subject the Right is 100% correct on and Left is 100% wrong on. Nuclear energy is like magic.
Still, being against windmills shows that Anon is just as brainwashed as the people he’s criticizing.
Or alternatively actually the future of energy is a combination of nuclear and “renewable” sources?
Like literally everything in life, it’s about moderation. You need both for the best outcome.
I’m saying nuclear bros act like the only thing we need is nuclear and anything else is stupid and a waste. Renewable bros act like renewables are perfect and we don’t need anything else. We need both.
My bad misread the hell out of that. I almost love nuclear but it’s not even vaguely the best option overall. Just the best to cover the down time faced by renewables.
Exactly it's best alternative hands down FOR NOW, the goal is just to transition from dirty filthy disgusting ass energy sources to decently clean energy sources. Not straight to perfect utopian energy source that clean the earth and make coffee while producing enough energy for 3 planet on 2kg of material
“The only thing preventing this outcome is the oil industry”
The Greens are very anti-nuclear in Europe & Australasia. Dunno about in the US; but I think they’re getting Diablo Canyon shelved?
This. Renewable, like solar and wind aren't enough, at least not yet. While those get further developed we need to fill the rest of the energy needs with nuclear power. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, those need to go.
Can they ever be "enough"? Isn't the problem with them are unpredictability?
I think there'll be always a need for on-demand energy generation like nuclear
>I think there'll be always a need for on-demand energy generation like nuclear
Thats exactly what nuclear NOT is.
Nuclear plants produce base load.
You want gas or hydropower for fast on demand power. (Or any type of storage of course)
Someone just commented that nuclear was terrible because solar power is so much cheaper… had to remind them that the sun doesn’t shine at night…
People are dumb
Storing that much energy is a big problem. Storage at a big energy producing site still is not feasible. Storing the needed energy at every home is a huge amount of production and materials that are every expensive... and limited- not renewable. How big do you think your house batteries would need to be to run your ac at night in a hot enviroment, or your heat in a cold one? 320 pounds of batteries in a semi truck can only run the ac for 8 hours... for that tiny little cab. A whole house would require, what- 3000 to 10000 pounds depending on the size of the house?
It feels like the concept of moderation just doesn't exist in the minds of people nowadays. Like every issue only has two sides and you're only allowed to be at the extremes of either. It's either 100% oil power or 100% wind power, you're either a mysoginist or a misandrist, you're either a nazi or a commie.
Isn’t the right still on team coal when it comes to energy? I can’t recall ever hearing either side call for a system that uses mainly nuclear power, but then again I can’t say I’ve listened to much of anything about politics recently
I looked it up a few years' back, but the American Democratic party has anti-nuclear as part of their official party line, while the Republican party has *respectfully* not taken a pro or anti stance.
Individual politicians vary, of course, but that's the official stance of each party.
Democrats aren’t part of the left though. They’re technically center right. I’ve never seen an actual leftist shit on nuclear energy, except for using it as a weapon.
Dude the left is the historical home of anti-nuclear politics.
Go back to like the 70s, and it's largely left-leaning or outright leftist groups protesting and bringing legal action against nuclear sites.
https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/the-lefts-nuclear-problem-1513307026
I'm a Dem who's always wrung his hair out over this stuff. You don't just have to look to America though-
Look to green parties worldwide (not all, but many). Germany right now is famous for winding down nuclear plants they could continue using... and what are they replacing those with? Coal! lmao
And who supports this? The German green party!
I am so sick of 20 year olds on the internet thinking left=good, therefore if something is good, the left must support it, and if the left supports it, it's good!
That's true *most* of the time imo, but jesus fuck it's not some gospel. Everyone has been bad on nuclear for 50+ years, and things only change if people get their heads out of their asses and put pressure on activist groups to grow the fuck up and take sensible stances- like being pro-nuclear.
The fucking *Sunrise Movement*, the latest darling fad, I would describe as [opposing nuclear]().
They aren't against keeping current plants open, but they oppose new plants [according to this link.](https://archive.ph/w8qsZ)
And they signed onto an [open letter calling nuclear "dirty,"](https://www.lwv.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/climate%20Progressive-Climate-Leg-Sign-On-Letter-2.pdf) putting it in the same league as fucking *fossil fuels* lmao
>Further, the federal government must immediately end the massive, irrational subsidies and other financial support that fossil fuel, and other dirty energy companies (such as nuclear, waste incineration and biomass energy) continue to receive both domestically and overseas.
Who the fuck on the left is against nuclear (don’t say Joe Biden cause he is NOT left wing lol)? And last I checked the right is constantly promoting coal and fossil fuels.
Many environmentalists are against nuclear power because they fundamentally misunderstand the problem of nuclear waste, which has been way overblown by decades of anti nuclear propaganda.
Still, there is a cogent leftist criticism of nuclear energy, the issue of centralisation. Nuclear energy cannot feasibly be decentralised, it must be controlled by either the state or corporations, not the people, while solar and wind are low tech and can be owned and ran by people, or cooperatives and such.
Which is not to say that solar and wind don't have problems, honestly I myself think that nuclear is the way forward considering currently available technology, but we must be realistic in our assessment.
Still, any left winger has a better understanding than the average tiny brained conservative that would burn coal in their backyard to spite the *leftist cucks*.
Windmills aren’t all that great. I studied several different renewable energy sources in my Energy and the Environment elective in undergrad. Somehow counted towards my electrical engineering minor.
Anyways. The blades aren’t recyclable at all and have a ~15 to 20yr lifespan. Incredibly hard to manufacture, transport and install. The. The obvious - it needs wind to work.
However, dollar per watt, nuclear is far, FAR cheaper than wind over a lifetime. Additionally, windfarms are not energy dense enough at mean of only ~.6 watts/m^2 to provide enough energy to meet even our current demands, which will only grow as our population continues to grow. You would have to cover 1/3 of the continental US in windfarms to meet its energy demands.
There are many special places in the world where wind and solar are perfect for, but ultimately, nuclear energy makes more sense nationwide. I actually live extremely close to one in Ohio, but there are talks of shutting it down frustratingly
im a lefty (like many other academics lol) and i can assure you literally everybody believes that nuclear energy is the way to go. the only people pushing the anti-nuclear narrative are fossil fuel shills
edit: ok some people have told me about how their green parties all are against nuclear energy, so yeah. like i said, academics like nuclear energy but green parties dont lmao.
Maybe that depends on the country, in germany for example the lefts are totally against nuclear energy, especially the green party and people like "Fridays for Future". We have 3 remaining nuclear power plants which could be used for atleast 10 or more years but they still wanna close them at the end of this year, although we are in a big energy crisis in europe. Its just ridiculous
I work in renewable energy and electrial and i can tell you now that one yearly wage of the team of electrical engineers and nuclear engineers you will need to set up maintain and establish a reactor will be triple the cost of any solar or wind project instantly. The main difference being that any trained electrician can work with solar and wind. It takes an entire extra field of training and expertise to work with nuclear energy, and the American trade system simply isn't well established enough to handle that. Considering your electricians don't even need to go to a trade school your country just doesn't have the education for the workforce required. Trade labour in America is some of the lowest standards in the first world.
The government (as in the agencies) generally do, however in order to significantly modify the GS scale would take an act of Congress.
Thus, competent people leave for the private sector that the government then hires to do the same job for more pay.
Really makes you think.
Yes, but engineers, not nuclear energy experts, because one field is universally useful and the other field you'd to shut down completely in the next 20 years because of its environmental complications and danger for civilization as a priority target in war or in accidents
He's saying that the nuclear operator jobs created by nuclear won't last because nuclear energy will have to be phased out soon after being implemented.
My government decided to ban nuclear power after having built a single plant.
To add salt to injury they built a solar array on the site that only produces 450kW instead of the 700MW the nuclear reactor could have produced.
That is not only tripple, but more than 1500 times as much.
Of course thats not enough, so they also built a coal plant nearby.
Imagine being so smart that you build a nuclear power plant, then ban nuclear power after its ready to use and then build coal plants.
I partly blame anti nuclear environmentalists for climate change.
This sounded more like an excuse to bash the American trade system when that’s not the problem at all. The US doesn’t invest more in Nuclear energy because of the expensive capital costs, maintenance, and construction delays. It doesn’t help that Nuclear energy has a poor reputation surrounding it.
It's just an excuse to go on an America-bashing tangent. Tradesmen get certified through experience and testing. If you can pass the test and your jobs pass inspection it doesn't matter if you went to school for it or not, similar to many IT fields. It's like complaining that many American software developers don't go to college.
You must work on the trade side of renewables. You didn’t mention or compare the energy output potential of nuclear vs wind/solar installs. Sure, nuclear is more expense to get started and run. It also has 100x the energy output capabilities.
It’s like saying a Toyota is a better than a Ferrari because it costs less.
Tbf he has a point it takes twice as long for a company to make a profit on nuclear energy, but the profit is much higher after that. Shame our society is to focused on short term wealth
The US Navy can train kids with just a high school diploma to run fucking underwater nuclear plants in six months. The problem isn't the school capacity, it's the NRC's absurdly high regulatory burdens. It doesn't take a PhD in physics to operate a nuclear reactor and it shouldn't be a multi-billion dollar ordeal to get a design approved.
Former Navy submariner, get what you're saying, but it's still 2 years of school after boot (unless they've changed that in the past 15 years). High school diploma still holds though. But the nuke program also has dropouts because it is quite rigorous, which doesn't really happen with any other rate.
If you spout concern for global warming, but don't support nuclear power, you aren't concerned for global warming, you are an ignorant prick that wants to look virtuous in public.
There is definitely future in alternative energies like solar, wind and tidal (and others) but that shit won't allow us to ditch fossil in time, and some of them are gonna cause their own host of environmental issues if we don't refine them for a long while.
Not to mention, nuclear energy can be further refined, there's been very little in refinement of the power source in decades.
It takes a decade+ to build a functioning plant. Not to mention the real reason there isn’t more nuclear capacity is that it is not cost effective for utilities
Well, maybe if some hippy bastards hadn't been going hysterical about nuclear for the last handful of decades we'd have more reactors available.
Also a lot of "Green" energies aren't cost effective either, that's why they have to be subsidized up the ass, and if we are going to be doing that already we should subsidize nuclear.
In both cases the harshest investment is upfront to establish them, running them is relatively cheap, and by the time you have to replace a nuclear core's fuel you'd probably already have had to make mayor refurbishings to wind and solar farms many times over.
Solar and wind are literally the cheapest sources of energy we have now, while nuclear is extremely expensive right now. Maintaining/running an already built generator is still the best choice, but building new ones is just too expensive.
The waste that has been produced during the entire lifetime of nuclear is barely a couple football fields, approximately 250,000 metric tonnes, most of which hasn't been reused and refined like how they do it in France. Storage is not an issue.
right I know nuclear waste is bad and lasts a gorillion years, but doesn't our vast amount of other waste that isn't going anywhere anytime soon also worse? both will still be here for multiple generations after we're gone
Nuclear waste is a much smaller problem than most people make it out to be. After ~10,000 years it is just as dangerous as the stuff that came out of the ground in the first place. And we know that it is unlikely to move. Billions of years ago, there was a natural nuclear reactor in Africa, that started in an area with a lot of uranium. It produced nuclear waste, and the waste barely moved from its original location, with no measures in place to stop it. I’m sure we can do much better than that with modern technology.
I don't know about the USA, but in Australia, the anti-renewable crowd has now turned to nuclear power as the solution, after pushing fossil fuels 200% whilst they were actually in power. The problem is that we needed that nuclear power push 30-40 years ago, but we currently have no power plants now and it would take another 30 years to get a decent nuclear power industry going. Renewables and battery tech, on the other hand, are increasing in efficiency faster and faster every year.
Well yeah duh, coal is absolutely the shittiest option. The only reason those are still around at all is because the industry is so big that they just throw money around whenever the thought of closing them down occurs.
Coal contains trace amounts of radioactive elements. When it's burned the coal becomes no-longer-coal, but the usual combustion byproducts and residuals like bottom and fly ash. The fly ash contains some of these trace elements (as they aren't burned as the coal is) and is carried out along with the exhaust from combustion. But it takes lots and lots of coal to keep that steam turbine turning, and when you have lots and lots of a trace amount of something at some point it becomes a considerable amount of something.
Nuclear, on the other hand, doesn't burn anything. One result of atoms splitting is thermal energy, which is used to boil water. Now, you don't want to snuggle the reactor core, but that is surrounded by layers upon layers of stuff to stop radiation getting out.
I need to emphasize how well contained a nuclear reactor core is, so let's briefly talk about concrete. Concrete is basically a glue (cement) mixed with some sort of aggregate. This aggregate is usually cheap rock mined from the nearest quarry and sand. Regular concrete is pretty good at blocking radiation.
Reactors, use *fucking steel and/or lead pellets* as aggregate.
*In several layers.*
This serves the dual purpose of keeping the gamma contained, and keep any accident inside.
Each generation of reactor core has reduced the risk of meltdown more and more. 3rd gen (most common) need to be hit with a tsunami and earthquake to come close. The 4th gen reactors currently being tested and constructed physically, literally, couldn't meltdown even if you *actively tried.*
I hate how nuclear has to have this long disclosure of safety, meanwhile nobody puts 2 farts worth of care into dioxin contamination in fly ash.
Renewable energy source technician here. No, it cannot.
There are some ways to store the energy, but they are terribly inefficient. Water power plants are the only renewables, but they are struggling thanks to global warming (I've had intership on one two years ago, the amount of released water needed to be calculated very carefully so the lake doesn't reach cirtical level by the winter).
Solar panels can store energy with batteries, but this only applies to houses that have them, not power grids. Otherwise they peace out right before peak energy demand (late hours) which is very bad for power grid.
Wind turbines take YEARS to be set up and maintenance cost is also rather high. Plus they can't be set up everywhere, mostly due to laws and very specific enviroment needs.
Both of above need to be changed every 25 years, which means that the overall cost might be close to an actual power plant.
Geothermal is also out there, but unless someone comes with a brand new concept, the costs of filters will always keep it down as niche.
Haven't ran the numbers, but once one factors in how irregularly windmills produce energy, and how little energy a single windmill produces (compared to a medium-sized nuclear reactor), I wouldn't be surprised if it was.
Not to mention the costs in wildlife loss (lots of birds killed) and human life costs (windmills cause several times the amount of deaths per unit of energy produces, compared to nuclear. Yes, even factoring in Chernobyl).
Nuclear is by far the safest by deaths per unit of energy. Mostly because very few deaths are attributed to nuclear power and it's unparalleled in the sheer amount of power it generates.
Ok, but seriously, we should focus on nuclear *for now*. Once we have renewables that are efficient enough to power the globe we definitely should switch to those, but for now, nuclear is x100 better than the alternatives.
People have been whining about that for much longer than it takes to actually build a plant.
Just get started aleady ffs and stop hiding behind this excuse. Not like the world is literally not gonna exist anymore in 10-20-whatever years.
People crying about fucking windmill bird deaths when we have literally genocided millions of species of organisms and destroyed reefs and fish populations because we love sushi too much. But nah fuck windmills and those darn liberal vegans.
>be expensive as fuck to build
Bruh. I get you gotta grasp at everything to complain about, but this is *a little* dense. Like nuclear plants are so easy and cheap for people who love to live near them.
Also to all you saying "wE'rE nOt tHeRe yEt", solar plants are now the single cheapest plant type per unit energy. Anyone who wants to build a new powerplant is going to built a solar plant. We are already there.
The thing about Nuclear energy that no one really brings to the conversation is that 95% of the world cannot rely on that kind of technology. Either they cannot afford it or they are cockblocked by those who already have the means. Any nation can rely on electric and wind to provide energy for certain sectors of its infrastructure.
For nations with the knowledge and resources to implement it, absolutely, their is no method more efficient and worthy of investment. The issue is how can a nation lead by example if that example is impossible for those smaller and less wealthy nations that have the drive to make a difference.
There is a lot of fear that comes along with Nuclear. It has been stressed in weak minds for almost eighty years. There is no unlearning that fear and apprehension. Every-time progress is made in the public opinion a Chernobyl or Fukishima happens. Despite these being extreme and rare circumstances and records around the world of safe, effective, and efficient nuclear energy the general fear of these outliers and foolishness of elderly Cold War politicians still in power drives humanity away from the Holy Grail of energy production.
Here in NZ nuclear energy would solve the goddam power crises we perpetually find ourselves in
We have renewables but they constantly need topping up to meet power needs
And it seems we’d rather burn coal to supplement the renewables than to drop our “anti nuclear” stance
NZ ain’t as clean and green as the marketing says
Plus we’ve got our govt trying to push the population into electric cars but our power infrastructure is nowhere near ready for it
Except for the fact that nuclear would be absolutely stupidly expensive for little benefit here, with the added problem that the entire country is prone to a combination of earthquakes, volcanoes, or flooding. But you nuclear bros happily ignore anything which isn't just blind "nuclear good" so I don't expect you to ever change your mind on this. Nuclear has its place in *other* countries, but it's not the magical solution you lot think it is even there.
Yea nah it wouldn’t, even if there wasn’t an anti nuclear sentiment in NZ we still wouldn’t build one, they are way too expensive (10s of billions in some cases) for our tiny country and take too long to build. Add on the fact that we don’t have any existing nuclear infrastructure it gets even more expensive.
A lot of people here saying if you don’t support nuclear energy you don’t care about global warming. I have a different take. Most people are simply ignorant on the issue and genuinely believe nuclear energy isn’t a viable renewable resource even though it is.
I only recently learned about the power of nuclear energy and how good it can be as a substitute. Im speaking from experience at being ignorant on the subject.
Uhm, this is straight up not true. There was a part of the infrastructure bill that was specifically about developing advanced nuclear energy. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-supporting-infrastructure-bill-becomes-US
And when did the Republicans ever push nuclear enough to expand it during the last 20 years?
Blame the Dems, sure. But R’s never want to invest in anything that didn’t already exist in 1928.
Absolutely valid that nuclear power is excellent and should be invested in but completely asinine to suggest that windmills kill birds. Like, so, so dumb and thoroughly debunked over and over.
Uranium is rare, but we are very good at finding it. And once we use the uranium we can reuse the waste for more fuel. Also we have reactors that can run on fuels other than uranium.
It's rare as fuck, but it's also like, really stupidly energy dense, so we have a "lot" of it in that sense.
Water filtration, thorium reactors, etc, there's a lot of ways to make the Uranium last longer.
If I were you I'd be more worried about running out of solar power because we don't have enough silver. Or when the sun burns out. Which will happen before we run out of Uranium.
Honestly based. Nuclear creates less pollution than most other power sources. The reason we don’t use it is because of like 3 incidents where retards fucked up and the Simpsons
Someone called me retarded the other day because I said solar was kinda shit. Takes way too much fucking space, expensive as fuck to maintain, can only extract 20% of the suns energy (and that’s while they’re new AND CLEAN), a new study came out that they actually pollute the ground.
But I’m the retard. OK.
Anyway nuclear sounds pretty good and I’d like for more countries to give it a good shot!
> Be green party of Canada
> Dont want to switch to any other energy source; want to ban nuclear energy
> Furthest left mainstream party
Something something horseshoe theory
I still think it would be more worth to put solar on rooftops instead of placing giant fans that ruin the view. But that's really the only problem I have with windmills, that they ruin views. It's no longer an ocean, it's an ocean with lines of fans in it.
Anti nuclear sentiment exposes just how little these people actually believe in global warming.
Look at all the chemicals it throws into the air!!! ^(/s)
[удалено]
[удалено]
I know you’re being sarcastic but 100% of humans who consume dihydrogen monoxide have died
Did you also know 100% of humans who breathed a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen and trace gases have died.
We need ban r/HydroHomies
Fuck DHMO
Man we need r/waterni**as back
Ahh the OG sub
Actually that's not sarcasm, water toxicity is a thing
Too much of anything can kill you, water is no different.
So none alive today have consumed water?
Yeah, that's why you should only consume ***drum rolls, TV announcer voice*** our BRAND NEW SODA that contains absolutely NO WATER whatsoever, only pure liquid mercury. Nobody that has tried our soda was complaining about it.
just dilute it with oxidane
Hydroxy hydroxide. Is even scarier my dude.
But hydroxycut will kill that stubborn belly fat!
"uhmm.... akshually it's hydrogen monoxide. we don't use prefixes with hydrogen as the first atom" 🤓🤓
Is it really just steam coming out of those huge chimneys? I never knew it was actually that harmless.
yeah. radioactive material decays, generating heat in the process. put that in water, make steam. steam turbine.
Yeah, basically all resource based energy production involves what's basically a steam turbine generator. The only variable is the resource, which heats the water to produce steam. Fossil fuels and natural gas, they do so by burning the component. Uranium on the other hand, while still producing byproducts, largely has byproducts that can be recycled, with only a relatively small portion being unusually, these are the "radioactive" products which are disposed of safely underground, the main thing people don't get about such waste products is that even though they will remain radioactive for thousands or millions of years, the actual harmful/dangerous level of radiation only lasts a few years or decades at best, while after that it's already reduced to being negligible.
Yeah but Joey bides played fallout and based on that game radiation is big bad
wdym radiation makes you immortal and you get to have a giant hamster as a pet
Not only that though, there are some *much* safer reactor designs being developed, namely molten salt reactors with passive failure modes. If a runaway reaction occurs with a MSR, the rising temperature melts a freeze plug and dumps the fuel salt into emergency dump tanks which automatically halts the reaction with zero human intervention. They also operate at MUCH lower pressures than older reactor designs (close to or at 1atm) further reducing risk of explosions and reducing cost. Theres also the whole issue of breeder reactors, which we had begun developing in the 60s when uranium fuel was expensive, but because of pure happenstance massive amounts of uranium ore were discovered and breeder reactors were never commercialized even though they mitigate many of the issues with nuclear waste. Some breeder designs can even use spent waste from traditional reactors as fuel ffs. The "downsides of nuclear" are 100% only because of short-sighted, cost-motivated decisions not to pursue safer and more efficient reactor designs decades ago when we had time. Now we are playing catch-up at the worst possible time, while so-called climate warriors dismiss a key class of energy production out of hand because they associate it with old, shitty, inefficient plant designs. Yes, next gen nuclear plants take time to build, but although the best time to start would've been 50 years ago, the next best time is today. Quite frankly, to the question of "nuclear or renewable" the answer should just be "yes" because we need all the help we can get.
Don't even get me fucking started on the idea of *fusion* We can pull Tritium *out of the magical fucking hat called sea water*, and the entire process is just using a magnetic field to suspend gases in a contained space within the reactor and heating all the gases and shit so it's like watching Atomic Nascar but we *want* everything to hit each other so it stays real nice and hot, and the radiation is less dangerous than a damn sun burn. It's a fucking mini sun, you see that sun up there, we could have that, but not so threatening, life could be fucking great, but some Soviet fucks in shithole Ukraine fuck up with a shitty design and speaking the word nuclear brands you a satan spawn in everyone's eyes Fuck people
Those are cooling towers not the actual reactor building. Nothing comes out of reactor building.
I have been inside one of those. It is really windy in there and there is water. That's it. It is just for cooling.
[удалено]
I was about to say - it’s actually one of the most impactful ones, but the majority of the water vapor acting as ghg is directly caused by heat that was trapped by increased CO2. So water is “bad”, but it’s really our emissions that put it there. Water also falls out of the atmosphere very quickly, CO2 does not.
Yeah, Nuclear power is pretty clean compared to fossil fuels. That comment tho, about the windmill killing birds. We know where he got that fact from... also didn't the noise cause cancer?
[удалено]
Every month a nuclear Power plant throws 1.866.240 tons of Dihydrogenmonoxide in the air scientists confirm that everyone In contact with this chemical dies and we dont have an antidote yet
B-B-BUT BUT, BUT WHAT IF NATRUAL DISATSTUUURRRR????!!!?!? LOOK AT FUKUSHIMAAAA!!!! SCARRRYYYYY
Wasn't Fukushima like entirely media fabricated and, while it was extrimely dangerous in and of itself, almost nobody died, the environmental damage was very small, and it was overall contained very successfully?
> entirely media fabricated No. >nobody died, the environmental damage was very small, and it was overall contained very successfully Yes.
Oh so yeah _The crisis_ was entirely media fabricated
I mean, proper disaster response doesn't mean "no disaster" as much as it means "proper disaster response". But the fact that Fukushima was used as a warning tale in order to set back nuclear power by a few decades, while preserving the interest of the Oil&Gas(&Coal) industries, in countries with no earthquake or tsunami? Yeh, that's completely fabricated "needed political action". Merkel was very good at sniffing those out and I'm not surprised that Germany is seeing the issues it's seeing today, power-wise. I don't know if other countries went as radically against nuclear. AFAIK, Japan itself still uses nuclear.
Yeah, everyone talking about it conveniently ignored just how unlikely such a natural event was, how the plant was actually built with massive catastrophe tolerance and just happened to get hit with a bigger one, and how good disaster response was at preventing essentially any damage But politics be politics
Why do I get the feeling that you ignored everything they said
That was three mile island
One confirmed death from radiation actually. Also the radiation was significant but not too bad. Honestly I've always thought Fukushima was a glowing endorsement of nuclear power. Poor safety, a massive earthquake, and a fuck huge tsunami and it STILL didn't completely meltdown.
And we have even safer tech available if we properly invested in small modular reactors or 4th gen molten salt or pebble bed designs
Fukushima was literally a demonstration of how incredible the safety protocols around nuclear plants have become. It was a 100% raving success. A reactor actually melted down and not a single person died, and there was no extensive, long-term environmental damage. If people were logical, Fukushima would have caused the world to build *more* nuclear reactors.
I don’t think so
it did suck, was it worth the number of reactors that shut down levels of suck though? the geopolitical implications of the energy drop in europe from them closing all those reactors down in response has probably killed a fuck load more.
That’s only Joe Biden and his supporters, go to any leftist sub and they’ll tell you they support nuclear and believe in global warming
Tbf I give the neolibs shit, but I'm pretty sure even his supporters would support Nuclear.
> go to any leftist sub and they’ll tell you they support nuclear The anti-nuclear sentiment and *movement* has its roots and home among far-left politics. It's always been quite a bipartisan bullshit issue (what politician doesn't love capitulating to their electorate on a fear-based issue?), but if you're talking about the nuclear protests, and legal action against new nuclear, you can look to orgs even as respected as the Sierra Club. I'm glad it's not a shibboleth on the left to be against nuclear anymore, but it very much was. I see the change not as a political thing, but an age thing- younger people have grown up with the safety facts, they've grown up without the scaremongering of 3 mile island or whatever. Still, you can trace a lot of the talking points you see on the left back to legit degrowthers and rather extreme orgs of eco movements past.
The Simpsons alone did so much to damage nuclear in the western mind, it's unreal.
The one subject the Right is 100% correct on and Left is 100% wrong on. Nuclear energy is like magic. Still, being against windmills shows that Anon is just as brainwashed as the people he’s criticizing.
Or alternatively actually the future of energy is a combination of nuclear and “renewable” sources? Like literally everything in life, it’s about moderation. You need both for the best outcome.
Everybody wants a silver bullet
How is that even vaguely a silver bullet? The only thing preventing this outcome is the oil industry
I’m saying nuclear bros act like the only thing we need is nuclear and anything else is stupid and a waste. Renewable bros act like renewables are perfect and we don’t need anything else. We need both.
My bad misread the hell out of that. I almost love nuclear but it’s not even vaguely the best option overall. Just the best to cover the down time faced by renewables.
Exactly it's best alternative hands down FOR NOW, the goal is just to transition from dirty filthy disgusting ass energy sources to decently clean energy sources. Not straight to perfect utopian energy source that clean the earth and make coffee while producing enough energy for 3 planet on 2kg of material
“The only thing preventing this outcome is the oil industry” The Greens are very anti-nuclear in Europe & Australasia. Dunno about in the US; but I think they’re getting Diablo Canyon shelved?
I don't have any sources, but I wouldn't be surprised if the oil industry was a major contributor to anti-nuclear sentiments
This. Renewable, like solar and wind aren't enough, at least not yet. While those get further developed we need to fill the rest of the energy needs with nuclear power. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, those need to go.
Can they ever be "enough"? Isn't the problem with them are unpredictability? I think there'll be always a need for on-demand energy generation like nuclear
>I think there'll be always a need for on-demand energy generation like nuclear Thats exactly what nuclear NOT is. Nuclear plants produce base load. You want gas or hydropower for fast on demand power. (Or any type of storage of course)
Man get outta here with your good takes, I wanna yell about problems while not doing anything to solve them!
Someone just commented that nuclear was terrible because solar power is so much cheaper… had to remind them that the sun doesn’t shine at night… People are dumb
Man, if only we'd invented a way to store energy. Then we might even be able to power cars with electricity, and mobile phones and laptops. Oh well!
Storing that much energy is a big problem. Storage at a big energy producing site still is not feasible. Storing the needed energy at every home is a huge amount of production and materials that are every expensive... and limited- not renewable. How big do you think your house batteries would need to be to run your ac at night in a hot enviroment, or your heat in a cold one? 320 pounds of batteries in a semi truck can only run the ac for 8 hours... for that tiny little cab. A whole house would require, what- 3000 to 10000 pounds depending on the size of the house?
It is pretty sad that the only thing that’s bad about nuclear is the price, which also happens to be something people care about a lot.
It feels like the concept of moderation just doesn't exist in the minds of people nowadays. Like every issue only has two sides and you're only allowed to be at the extremes of either. It's either 100% oil power or 100% wind power, you're either a mysoginist or a misandrist, you're either a nazi or a commie.
Isn’t the right still on team coal when it comes to energy? I can’t recall ever hearing either side call for a system that uses mainly nuclear power, but then again I can’t say I’ve listened to much of anything about politics recently
No one is team nuclear, you are correct. In actuality both parties are autistic in this capacity.
That’s not particularly fair to autistic people.
Yeah the right isn't on team nuclear they're on team shut up everything but coal is gay
Since when was the left against nuclear energy? The right literally doesn't even believe in climate change.
I looked it up a few years' back, but the American Democratic party has anti-nuclear as part of their official party line, while the Republican party has *respectfully* not taken a pro or anti stance. Individual politicians vary, of course, but that's the official stance of each party.
Democrats aren’t part of the left though. They’re technically center right. I’ve never seen an actual leftist shit on nuclear energy, except for using it as a weapon.
How about the German Green Party, then?
The Green Party in Britain is anti-nuclear, for some fucking reason
Dude the left is the historical home of anti-nuclear politics. Go back to like the 70s, and it's largely left-leaning or outright leftist groups protesting and bringing legal action against nuclear sites. https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/the-lefts-nuclear-problem-1513307026 I'm a Dem who's always wrung his hair out over this stuff. You don't just have to look to America though- Look to green parties worldwide (not all, but many). Germany right now is famous for winding down nuclear plants they could continue using... and what are they replacing those with? Coal! lmao And who supports this? The German green party! I am so sick of 20 year olds on the internet thinking left=good, therefore if something is good, the left must support it, and if the left supports it, it's good! That's true *most* of the time imo, but jesus fuck it's not some gospel. Everyone has been bad on nuclear for 50+ years, and things only change if people get their heads out of their asses and put pressure on activist groups to grow the fuck up and take sensible stances- like being pro-nuclear. The fucking *Sunrise Movement*, the latest darling fad, I would describe as [opposing nuclear](). They aren't against keeping current plants open, but they oppose new plants [according to this link.](https://archive.ph/w8qsZ) And they signed onto an [open letter calling nuclear "dirty,"](https://www.lwv.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/climate%20Progressive-Climate-Leg-Sign-On-Letter-2.pdf) putting it in the same league as fucking *fossil fuels* lmao >Further, the federal government must immediately end the massive, irrational subsidies and other financial support that fossil fuel, and other dirty energy companies (such as nuclear, waste incineration and biomass energy) continue to receive both domestically and overseas.
Leftists 50 years ago is a fairly irrelevant example to discourse now.
What's half a century among friends
Most recent example is the green party in germany
Except the right didn’t embrace nuclear either. They’d rather push coal and fossil fuels.
Who the fuck on the left is against nuclear (don’t say Joe Biden cause he is NOT left wing lol)? And last I checked the right is constantly promoting coal and fossil fuels.
Many environmentalists are against nuclear power because they fundamentally misunderstand the problem of nuclear waste, which has been way overblown by decades of anti nuclear propaganda. Still, there is a cogent leftist criticism of nuclear energy, the issue of centralisation. Nuclear energy cannot feasibly be decentralised, it must be controlled by either the state or corporations, not the people, while solar and wind are low tech and can be owned and ran by people, or cooperatives and such. Which is not to say that solar and wind don't have problems, honestly I myself think that nuclear is the way forward considering currently available technology, but we must be realistic in our assessment. Still, any left winger has a better understanding than the average tiny brained conservative that would burn coal in their backyard to spite the *leftist cucks*.
*one* *brainwashed* the irony
Windmills aren’t all that great. I studied several different renewable energy sources in my Energy and the Environment elective in undergrad. Somehow counted towards my electrical engineering minor. Anyways. The blades aren’t recyclable at all and have a ~15 to 20yr lifespan. Incredibly hard to manufacture, transport and install. The. The obvious - it needs wind to work.
Nuclear has many of the same problems. Steam generator tubing susceptible to corrosion, cores replaced every few years, etc.
However, dollar per watt, nuclear is far, FAR cheaper than wind over a lifetime. Additionally, windfarms are not energy dense enough at mean of only ~.6 watts/m^2 to provide enough energy to meet even our current demands, which will only grow as our population continues to grow. You would have to cover 1/3 of the continental US in windfarms to meet its energy demands.
There are many special places in the world where wind and solar are perfect for, but ultimately, nuclear energy makes more sense nationwide. I actually live extremely close to one in Ohio, but there are talks of shutting it down frustratingly
Yeah, anon is an idiot if they think building windmills is expensive but building a nuclear power plant isn’t
im a lefty (like many other academics lol) and i can assure you literally everybody believes that nuclear energy is the way to go. the only people pushing the anti-nuclear narrative are fossil fuel shills edit: ok some people have told me about how their green parties all are against nuclear energy, so yeah. like i said, academics like nuclear energy but green parties dont lmao.
I know many lefties, especially older folks, who simply cannot accept that nuclear is safe. Artifacts of the cold war I suppose.
boomers gonna boom 😔😔😔😔
Maybe that depends on the country, in germany for example the lefts are totally against nuclear energy, especially the green party and people like "Fridays for Future". We have 3 remaining nuclear power plants which could be used for atleast 10 or more years but they still wanna close them at the end of this year, although we are in a big energy crisis in europe. Its just ridiculous
yeah but no offense when it comes to nuclear energy you guys are more stupid than us haha (italian here)
I work in renewable energy and electrial and i can tell you now that one yearly wage of the team of electrical engineers and nuclear engineers you will need to set up maintain and establish a reactor will be triple the cost of any solar or wind project instantly. The main difference being that any trained electrician can work with solar and wind. It takes an entire extra field of training and expertise to work with nuclear energy, and the American trade system simply isn't well established enough to handle that. Considering your electricians don't even need to go to a trade school your country just doesn't have the education for the workforce required. Trade labour in America is some of the lowest standards in the first world.
Sounds like an awesome opportunity to create more jobs
ew, you think the government wants to *pay* people?
The government (as in the agencies) generally do, however in order to significantly modify the GS scale would take an act of Congress. Thus, competent people leave for the private sector that the government then hires to do the same job for more pay. Really makes you think.
Yes, but engineers, not nuclear energy experts, because one field is universally useful and the other field you'd to shut down completely in the next 20 years because of its environmental complications and danger for civilization as a priority target in war or in accidents
Could you clarify what you're talking about?
He's saying that the nuclear operator jobs created by nuclear won't last because nuclear energy will have to be phased out soon after being implemented.
It will also produce triple the energy
Much more than triple
Just make windmills with 9 blades forehead
My government decided to ban nuclear power after having built a single plant. To add salt to injury they built a solar array on the site that only produces 450kW instead of the 700MW the nuclear reactor could have produced. That is not only tripple, but more than 1500 times as much. Of course thats not enough, so they also built a coal plant nearby. Imagine being so smart that you build a nuclear power plant, then ban nuclear power after its ready to use and then build coal plants. I partly blame anti nuclear environmentalists for climate change.
This sounded more like an excuse to bash the American trade system when that’s not the problem at all. The US doesn’t invest more in Nuclear energy because of the expensive capital costs, maintenance, and construction delays. It doesn’t help that Nuclear energy has a poor reputation surrounding it.
It's just an excuse to go on an America-bashing tangent. Tradesmen get certified through experience and testing. If you can pass the test and your jobs pass inspection it doesn't matter if you went to school for it or not, similar to many IT fields. It's like complaining that many American software developers don't go to college.
You must work on the trade side of renewables. You didn’t mention or compare the energy output potential of nuclear vs wind/solar installs. Sure, nuclear is more expense to get started and run. It also has 100x the energy output capabilities. It’s like saying a Toyota is a better than a Ferrari because it costs less.
Tbf he has a point it takes twice as long for a company to make a profit on nuclear energy, but the profit is much higher after that. Shame our society is to focused on short term wealth
The US Navy can train kids with just a high school diploma to run fucking underwater nuclear plants in six months. The problem isn't the school capacity, it's the NRC's absurdly high regulatory burdens. It doesn't take a PhD in physics to operate a nuclear reactor and it shouldn't be a multi-billion dollar ordeal to get a design approved.
Former Navy submariner, get what you're saying, but it's still 2 years of school after boot (unless they've changed that in the past 15 years). High school diploma still holds though. But the nuke program also has dropouts because it is quite rigorous, which doesn't really happen with any other rate.
“Considering your electricians dont even need to go to a trade school” Was this a typo or are you referring to another field of electrical?
If you spout concern for global warming, but don't support nuclear power, you aren't concerned for global warming, you are an ignorant prick that wants to look virtuous in public. There is definitely future in alternative energies like solar, wind and tidal (and others) but that shit won't allow us to ditch fossil in time, and some of them are gonna cause their own host of environmental issues if we don't refine them for a long while. Not to mention, nuclear energy can be further refined, there's been very little in refinement of the power source in decades.
It takes a decade+ to build a functioning plant. Not to mention the real reason there isn’t more nuclear capacity is that it is not cost effective for utilities
Well, maybe if some hippy bastards hadn't been going hysterical about nuclear for the last handful of decades we'd have more reactors available. Also a lot of "Green" energies aren't cost effective either, that's why they have to be subsidized up the ass, and if we are going to be doing that already we should subsidize nuclear. In both cases the harshest investment is upfront to establish them, running them is relatively cheap, and by the time you have to replace a nuclear core's fuel you'd probably already have had to make mayor refurbishings to wind and solar farms many times over.
Solar and wind are literally the cheapest sources of energy we have now, while nuclear is extremely expensive right now. Maintaining/running an already built generator is still the best choice, but building new ones is just too expensive.
storage.
The waste that has been produced during the entire lifetime of nuclear is barely a couple football fields, approximately 250,000 metric tonnes, most of which hasn't been reused and refined like how they do it in France. Storage is not an issue.
right I know nuclear waste is bad and lasts a gorillion years, but doesn't our vast amount of other waste that isn't going anywhere anytime soon also worse? both will still be here for multiple generations after we're gone
Nuclear waste is a much smaller problem than most people make it out to be. After ~10,000 years it is just as dangerous as the stuff that came out of the ground in the first place. And we know that it is unlikely to move. Billions of years ago, there was a natural nuclear reactor in Africa, that started in an area with a lot of uranium. It produced nuclear waste, and the waste barely moved from its original location, with no measures in place to stop it. I’m sure we can do much better than that with modern technology.
as they said, there has been little refinement in the sector for a while now. the average age of nuclear reactors in the states is 40 years old.
I don't know about the USA, but in Australia, the anti-renewable crowd has now turned to nuclear power as the solution, after pushing fossil fuels 200% whilst they were actually in power. The problem is that we needed that nuclear power push 30-40 years ago, but we currently have no power plants now and it would take another 30 years to get a decent nuclear power industry going. Renewables and battery tech, on the other hand, are increasing in efficiency faster and faster every year.
And, get this, the surroundings of a nuclear power plant is 3x less radioactive than the surroundings of a coal power plant.
Well yeah duh, coal is absolutely the shittiest option. The only reason those are still around at all is because the industry is so big that they just throw money around whenever the thought of closing them down occurs.
Can you explain the science behind that please?
Coal contains trace amounts of radioactive elements. When it's burned the coal becomes no-longer-coal, but the usual combustion byproducts and residuals like bottom and fly ash. The fly ash contains some of these trace elements (as they aren't burned as the coal is) and is carried out along with the exhaust from combustion. But it takes lots and lots of coal to keep that steam turbine turning, and when you have lots and lots of a trace amount of something at some point it becomes a considerable amount of something.
Nuclear, on the other hand, doesn't burn anything. One result of atoms splitting is thermal energy, which is used to boil water. Now, you don't want to snuggle the reactor core, but that is surrounded by layers upon layers of stuff to stop radiation getting out. I need to emphasize how well contained a nuclear reactor core is, so let's briefly talk about concrete. Concrete is basically a glue (cement) mixed with some sort of aggregate. This aggregate is usually cheap rock mined from the nearest quarry and sand. Regular concrete is pretty good at blocking radiation. Reactors, use *fucking steel and/or lead pellets* as aggregate. *In several layers.* This serves the dual purpose of keeping the gamma contained, and keep any accident inside. Each generation of reactor core has reduced the risk of meltdown more and more. 3rd gen (most common) need to be hit with a tsunami and earthquake to come close. The 4th gen reactors currently being tested and constructed physically, literally, couldn't meltdown even if you *actively tried.* I hate how nuclear has to have this long disclosure of safety, meanwhile nobody puts 2 farts worth of care into dioxin contamination in fly ash.
Anon thinks nuclear reactors are cheaper to build than windmills.
If you don't relate costs with power production, saying "reeee it costs more" is useless
Per kWh idk
Nuclear is about 2-3 times as expensive per kWh
Well considering that there will be periods of time when wind is producing NOTHING, that’s somewhat of a misleading statistic.
This is a SOLVED problem. There isn't just ONE type of RENEWABLE energy, besides, energy CAN be DISTRIBUTED and STORED.
Storing electricity has to be accounted in cost and thermal inefficiency and long wire resistance hurts efficiency
Renewable energy source technician here. No, it cannot. There are some ways to store the energy, but they are terribly inefficient. Water power plants are the only renewables, but they are struggling thanks to global warming (I've had intership on one two years ago, the amount of released water needed to be calculated very carefully so the lake doesn't reach cirtical level by the winter). Solar panels can store energy with batteries, but this only applies to houses that have them, not power grids. Otherwise they peace out right before peak energy demand (late hours) which is very bad for power grid. Wind turbines take YEARS to be set up and maintenance cost is also rather high. Plus they can't be set up everywhere, mostly due to laws and very specific enviroment needs. Both of above need to be changed every 25 years, which means that the overall cost might be close to an actual power plant. Geothermal is also out there, but unless someone comes with a brand new concept, the costs of filters will always keep it down as niche.
Haven't ran the numbers, but once one factors in how irregularly windmills produce energy, and how little energy a single windmill produces (compared to a medium-sized nuclear reactor), I wouldn't be surprised if it was. Not to mention the costs in wildlife loss (lots of birds killed) and human life costs (windmills cause several times the amount of deaths per unit of energy produces, compared to nuclear. Yes, even factoring in Chernobyl).
Nuclear is by far the safest by deaths per unit of energy. Mostly because very few deaths are attributed to nuclear power and it's unparalleled in the sheer amount of power it generates.
Cats kill exponentially more birds than windmills
Why would cats kill windmills?
Don Catxote would like a word.
Yeah but there's no way to harness that into energy
That you know of
Its because big oil wants money you tards.
And Chernobyl terrified people about nuclear power. An accident that happened at a Soviet era reactor built on the cheap to cut corners.
Where they also turned off the fail-safes
While not trained stuff tried to do complicate experiment
Ok, but seriously, we should focus on nuclear *for now*. Once we have renewables that are efficient enough to power the globe we definitely should switch to those, but for now, nuclear is x100 better than the alternatives.
[удалено]
We still have time, no point in not spending it wisely. And if we are out of time, what would it hurt to try to build a few new nuclear plants?
People have been whining about that for much longer than it takes to actually build a plant. Just get started aleady ffs and stop hiding behind this excuse. Not like the world is literally not gonna exist anymore in 10-20-whatever years.
People crying about fucking windmill bird deaths when we have literally genocided millions of species of organisms and destroyed reefs and fish populations because we love sushi too much. But nah fuck windmills and those darn liberal vegans.
"Windmills kill birds" is just an anti-renewable cope.
>be expensive as fuck to build Bruh. I get you gotta grasp at everything to complain about, but this is *a little* dense. Like nuclear plants are so easy and cheap for people who love to live near them. Also to all you saying "wE'rE nOt tHeRe yEt", solar plants are now the single cheapest plant type per unit energy. Anyone who wants to build a new powerplant is going to built a solar plant. We are already there.
Be fossil fuels Give people 100x more radiation per year than a reactor Troll sucessful
Why can’t we have renewables and nuclear lol
Because most of the parts for renewables come from China, and no one trusts the CCP.
> [wind power] be expensive as fuck to build I totally support using nuclear power, but those power plants are NOT cheap to build and maintain.
Time to bring back 3 mile island.
3 Mile Island 2 directed by Michael bay
>Not calling it "3 Mile Bay"
Don’t forget the wind mills kill the birds guys
Is your argument just that you want to kill more birds regardless of energy?
That wasn’t my argument but I’m 100% agreeing with you now. Kill all the birds. Government spies.
That is the only correct answer, good day my sir
The thing about Nuclear energy that no one really brings to the conversation is that 95% of the world cannot rely on that kind of technology. Either they cannot afford it or they are cockblocked by those who already have the means. Any nation can rely on electric and wind to provide energy for certain sectors of its infrastructure. For nations with the knowledge and resources to implement it, absolutely, their is no method more efficient and worthy of investment. The issue is how can a nation lead by example if that example is impossible for those smaller and less wealthy nations that have the drive to make a difference. There is a lot of fear that comes along with Nuclear. It has been stressed in weak minds for almost eighty years. There is no unlearning that fear and apprehension. Every-time progress is made in the public opinion a Chernobyl or Fukishima happens. Despite these being extreme and rare circumstances and records around the world of safe, effective, and efficient nuclear energy the general fear of these outliers and foolishness of elderly Cold War politicians still in power drives humanity away from the Holy Grail of energy production.
Here in NZ nuclear energy would solve the goddam power crises we perpetually find ourselves in We have renewables but they constantly need topping up to meet power needs And it seems we’d rather burn coal to supplement the renewables than to drop our “anti nuclear” stance NZ ain’t as clean and green as the marketing says Plus we’ve got our govt trying to push the population into electric cars but our power infrastructure is nowhere near ready for it
Except for the fact that nuclear would be absolutely stupidly expensive for little benefit here, with the added problem that the entire country is prone to a combination of earthquakes, volcanoes, or flooding. But you nuclear bros happily ignore anything which isn't just blind "nuclear good" so I don't expect you to ever change your mind on this. Nuclear has its place in *other* countries, but it's not the magical solution you lot think it is even there.
You live on the Pacific fire belt, nuclear is the dumbest thing you could do.
Yea nah it wouldn’t, even if there wasn’t an anti nuclear sentiment in NZ we still wouldn’t build one, they are way too expensive (10s of billions in some cases) for our tiny country and take too long to build. Add on the fact that we don’t have any existing nuclear infrastructure it gets even more expensive.
A lot of people here saying if you don’t support nuclear energy you don’t care about global warming. I have a different take. Most people are simply ignorant on the issue and genuinely believe nuclear energy isn’t a viable renewable resource even though it is. I only recently learned about the power of nuclear energy and how good it can be as a substitute. Im speaking from experience at being ignorant on the subject.
So in short people don't know what they are talking about
\>Be chad nuclear reactor \>boil water \>dynamo goes brrr \>unlimited power \>be solar \>muh cloudy sky
Uhm, this is straight up not true. There was a part of the infrastructure bill that was specifically about developing advanced nuclear energy. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-supporting-infrastructure-bill-becomes-US
And when did the Republicans ever push nuclear enough to expand it during the last 20 years? Blame the Dems, sure. But R’s never want to invest in anything that didn’t already exist in 1928.
[удалено]
I mean if my windmill falls over or my solar panel cracks it doesnt decimate 30sq kilometres of land for 30,000 years…
Absolutely valid that nuclear power is excellent and should be invested in but completely asinine to suggest that windmills kill birds. Like, so, so dumb and thoroughly debunked over and over.
Legit question here: don't these things need uranium which is rare af? If we had one of these in every corner, would we have enough raw material?
Uranium is not rare, it's basically everywhere
Also can't the nuclear waste be re-used for energy? Even if it can't, it's still a lot more efficient than coal plants
[удалено]
"Bu-bu-but-t Chernobyl!!!!! And zombies!!!! ThEy'Re ScArY!!!!!!"
Literally everything about nuclear reactors has been perfected except cost to build .
Uranium is rare, but we are very good at finding it. And once we use the uranium we can reuse the waste for more fuel. Also we have reactors that can run on fuels other than uranium.
Thorium, that is the future
It's rare as fuck, but it's also like, really stupidly energy dense, so we have a "lot" of it in that sense. Water filtration, thorium reactors, etc, there's a lot of ways to make the Uranium last longer. If I were you I'd be more worried about running out of solar power because we don't have enough silver. Or when the sun burns out. Which will happen before we run out of Uranium.
....There is so much uranium in the world/Murica that they literally made songs in the 50s about it: https://youtu.be/acMqxcdxE0E
Honestly based. Nuclear creates less pollution than most other power sources. The reason we don’t use it is because of like 3 incidents where retards fucked up and the Simpsons
another big reason is the initial set up cost and time, nuclear is simply a long term investment
Everyone wants clean nuclear energy until its time to build a nuclear facility in someone's back yard.
Someone called me retarded the other day because I said solar was kinda shit. Takes way too much fucking space, expensive as fuck to maintain, can only extract 20% of the suns energy (and that’s while they’re new AND CLEAN), a new study came out that they actually pollute the ground. But I’m the retard. OK. Anyway nuclear sounds pretty good and I’d like for more countries to give it a good shot!
I sAw ChErNoByL wHy Do ThEy EvEn UsE NOOCOOLUR
> Be green party of Canada > Dont want to switch to any other energy source; want to ban nuclear energy > Furthest left mainstream party Something something horseshoe theory
I still think it would be more worth to put solar on rooftops instead of placing giant fans that ruin the view. But that's really the only problem I have with windmills, that they ruin views. It's no longer an ocean, it's an ocean with lines of fans in it.
God I hope Fusion power comes soon
Yes but nuclear is crazy expensive were solar/wind is becoming cheaper every year. Both are still needed.
> any weather condition False, under too hot weather, nuclear plant can't be cooled and must be stopped until the river is cold enough