Why isn't nuclear energy the most popular power source, it's literally the most efficient and clean

Why isn't nuclear energy the most popular power source, it's literally the most efficient and clean

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qwRYtiSbbVg
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Hippies

Big Oil, Big Coal and recently, Big Wind and Big Solar.

Honestly? Fuck knows. I think the only thing is that people mostly aren't rational and will fear nuclear energy because it sometimes fails spectacularly, while "safer" options simply fuck up in less sensational ways (no boom, just X hundreds of birds killed each year, X thousands of people dying from cancer per year).

It's not cheap. Hydroelectricty plants are cheaper to build and operate.

I remember they were going to build an ice wall in the middle of the sea to contain the Fukushima accident, which they continue to suppress the severity of.

because people dont want to live near them

The initial cost of a power plant is high, but in the long run it's way cheaper than anything else

What about that time they passed out iodine bills in Brussels, due to a terrorist threat against a power plant.

Fear and lobbying

Most clean? This planet is a nuclear waste ticking time bomb. If any sort of massive scale disaster happens, the remaining life on earth will surely be extinguished by all of the radioactive waste unleashed by humanity.

because it produces waste that has an indefinite life, and no indefinite way to store it. We store spent rods in barrels that last 50 years and in pools that need constant maintenance.

We are going to have a serious problem with the accumulated waste.

Fukushima is still uncontainable and robots die within an hour of trying to even approach it- waste still pouring unstoppable into our oceans.

>send waste to space
>????
>profit

All that nuclear material came from the earth itself.

that's shitty but at least it meant that Japan got nuked for a 3rd time.

Managed decline

Impractical. Would cost more energy to dispose of the waste in space than it would produce.

Because Chernobyl ruined it for everyone

It was run by commies, so it's no surprise it failed

Because Westerns too stupid and cannot into nuclear waste processing.

Packed beneath massive amounts of earth, not being poured into our water supply you dumb fuck. Oil exists on earth, but coat the oceans in our oil supplies and mass death of life occurs.

pretty sure the three mile island incident is what sealed the coffin for us burgers

Youre a retard.
its literally unstoppable, so they just ignore it.
Thats not how cesim works. It has a 30 year half life and more of it is leaking into the ocean every day. That is 30 years after it stops is when it will finally be clean.
If you still eat anything from the pacific ocean youre rolling the dice. Japan is finding fish of their shores thats to irradiated to feed to their population so they're shipping it overseas. Theres going to be massive out breaks of thyroid cancer in the near future.

There isn't any commercial plan made by Rothchilds, Rockerfellar, Morgans and some other. When the planning is done they will normalize it. Now the narrative is "its too dangerous because muh nuclear weapons"

fucking soviets, if chernobyl didn't happen europe would be all nuclear today

We are gonna run out of Uranium in about 80 years and Plutonium even sooner. With the high cost of producing these plants, whats the point if they will be inactive in 80 years

Can't speak for the rest of the world, but in the US it mainly comes down to cost. There hasn't been new reactor brought online since the 80's and it really just comes down to the cost.

The new generation of reactors are trying to change that though, but those are still years away.

Yeah the fucking environmentalists couldn't stop fear mongering. They're unable to do a cost/benefit analysis and come to a good conclusion.

Power could be clean and essentially free but instead we've got to waste billions trying to milk the sun.

>Chernobyl explode in 26 april 1986
> Liquidated in November 1986

>Fukushima Daiichi metldown in 11 March 2011
>Still liquidating

Westerns cannot into Nuclear

>commies
>western
>Japanese
>western
nah

Because of Libshits and hippie tree huggers. I've never met a liberal that didn't hate nuclear power.

All the leaders of the green groups have heavily invested in wind and solar. Lower ranks acknowledge nuclear as a good option but it keeps getting shut down.

Just like we were going to run out of oil. Now it's not even clear that we'll ever get around to using all the oil we've found.

>Energy
Clean.

>Storage of spent fuel
Awful.

I'm not risking it. Fuck having tonnes of cancer sludge near urban areas or rural areas.

Also I don't want any other country to Fukushima'd

The only safe option would be power plants on the Moon and bring back the energy in giant batteries.

>efficient
Not economically
>Uranium has to be mined
>Carefully transported to plant under high security
>Plant costs hundreds of millions to build and 50 years later hundreds more to decommission
>All the waste has to be stored under lock and key for millenia, costing trillions of dollars.

Thorium cycle/closed fuel cycle

Breed thorium-232 into U-233.
Lots of thorium going unused so this could continue for centuries

>That is 30 years after it stops is when it will finally be clean.

That's not what a 30 year half-life means.

its how you know the paris deal was bs. if hippies were sincere at all about lowering or maintaining the earths temp, they would be all for nuclear

Politics

Most of the fear from Nuclear energy comes from post-WII era nuclear reactors and processing.

Modern reactor designs are much safer and allow reprocessing of existing waste.

The only issue that is nuclear reactors are bloody expensive and time-consuming to construct but once they are up and running. They can operate for decades without too much issue.

Long-term waste disposal is somewhat problematic. The best strategy seems to be burying it deep into the earth itself (well below the water table)

even if you have the perfectly safe nuclear plant you still have the waste that radiates for thousands of years...

Store that shit in some underground vaults until some water leaks in and poisons the earth for centuries? Shoot that shit up to the moon which is fucking expensive and screws all your "cheap energy" bullshit?

We need a better way to get rid of the nuclear waste before that energy souce is accepted by the majority of people. If we're lucky we get fusion power before that happens

>be germany
>be energiewende superpower
>windpower doesnt work when theres no fucking wind
>buy overpriced energie from neighboring countrys
>fucking produce enough fucking energie for half of europe when there'S fucking wind
>sell energie for literally nothing to your neighboring countrys

GERMANY YES

Because some liberal cartoonist convinced most of the world that the people running them are overweight bafoons

Just mix it into cement and put the blocks on the impact zone of our various military bases.

We really really should build more Breeder reactors while working towards the thorium fuel cycle

>Fukushima Daiichi
> General Electric Mark 1 BWR-type nuclear reactor
It sounds Western to me

Bury the waste deep into the earth (Miles underground). It will become an non-issue and by the time it manages to come towards the surface via geological activity (span of thousands of years). It will be relatively inert.

Reminder that Chernobyl was a failure of communism, not of nuclear power.

Reminder that Fukushima was punishment for censoring hentai.

Because a constantly fluctuating Commie built NPP lacking any proper contingency plan in case of failiure represents nuclear power in it's entirety. Thanks again, USSR.

It's expensive and if there's a natural disaster or if it's run by a bunch of retards (Chernobyl) then you've got a big fucking problem on your hands. If a solar panel breaks, or a windmill falls over, there isn't a lasting effect for a millennium.

Could say the same about your post desu

>chernoshit
>some russian letters on the reactor

now its russian

>it's literally the most efficient and clean

And in reality, mining enough uranium to run a regional nuclear plant takes takes far more greenhouse gases than would ever be saved by the plant itself. Of course, the liberal MSM and greenpeace fliers fail to mention this, so obviously the dumb OP who only gets his information from them wouldn't know.

or wait I meant 'sounds russian to me'

>The initial cost of a power plant is high, but in the long run it's way cheaper than anything else

No, what happens in the long run is that they will fail to do maintenance because of budget reasons, and keep the facilities running longer than their operational time, resulting in a meltdown every 25-30 years.

3 mile island and retarded Ukraine operators

>Ukraine
Soviet* (imported Russian)

Because so many people are scientifically illiterate retards who believe that uranium used in reactor is weapons grade.

because if we actually curbed co2 emissions the left would lose their moral high ground on the future. Thats why they purposely adopt bad solutions so the problem will exist until whites are a minority, at which point they don't need white votes anymore

>people mostly aren't rational and will fear nuclear energy because it sometimes fails spectacularly, while "safer" options simply fuck up in less sensational ways (no boom, just X hundreds of birds killed each year, X thousands of people dying from cancer per year).

This.

I know so many people who will bang on about global warming for hours and then when you ask them about nuclear power, they have a screaming fit about "DIDN'T YOU HEAR ABOUT FUKUSHIMA? WE ARE ALL LITERALLY POISONED FOREVER!!!!!!!!! IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT????"

I don't know, it seems like the decision for these people is "the complete destruction of the earth" or "every once in a while a town becomes uninhabitable maybe", which isn't great but that's life.

People fear what they don't understand.
That is what it boils down into, even if you consider all the massive lobbying.

every river that can be used for hydro has in the good parts of the world

if we want to avoid escalating, nonlinear climate change, emissions have to peak and come down very rapidly

I don't see a way to do that without nuclear energy. We have to start by phasing out oil, coal and gas. That's where you start and then you can go on to think about whether nuclear makes sense and can compete against wind, solar and hydro.

Doing it the other way around is just being dangerously irresponsible with not just human civilization but every living thing on Earth.

It takes more to make a nuclear plant, but it's also more efficient.

One nuclear plant can generate over 75 times the energy needed to build it, though obviously it needs a lot of energy to build it.
One wind turbine can generate about 2-3 times the energy needed to build it, but requires much less energy.

Building enough wind turbines to match the output of one nuclear plant would require vastly more energy, and by extension cause significantly more pollution.

>greenhouse gases
>oh, no, muh climate change
first they told us the earth would freeze
when that didnt happen they told us it wold overheat
when that didnt happen they said fuck it and just told us that something really bad would happen, but didnt say exactly what or how

But what is to be done with the waste? It's not so clean when you have to dump a bunch of waste where it shouldn't be.

C'mon user.
Have you never heard of CONCENTRATION?

nuclear energy is cheap

you cant steal money or increase prices as much as in green and shit

Jews dislike nuclear energy for goys

We ARE literally poisoning this planet forever you dumb fuck.

Jews, solar panels.

No one wants waste in their backyard or traveling anywhere near it

Is geothermal power still a thing or does that not work well for larger power outputs?

Nuclear and trees will save the world from 'global warming'.

The sun emits more energy for us than we could ever use every second. It is our god, in a way, once we can truly harness it.

I think thorium-based powerplants are able to run on uranium-powerplant waste.

The main problem is that it is geographically limited.
And you have to build it on a volcano to get the most power.

Oh, and if that volcano erupts retards will blame you for it, even if it impossible for you to change the behavior of the volcano.

>Why isn't nuclear energy the most popular power source,

It consumes fissionable materials which are coveted strategic resources

>Understand global warming
You mean antropological induceed global warming
>even if you consider all the massive lobbying.
The massive lobbying is mostly to let the old ones stay and not to have to build new ones with current safety regulations. The so could energy turn is excatly what the nuclear energy companies want. Not have to build new ones, leave the old shitty ones on and if they have to shut them down get paid and then subsidies for new/green Energy.

when you say clean your talking about emissions but while i do support nuclear power its not waste free. some radiation escapes with the water vapor. its harmless in such low quantities but there is no proof it wouldnt be a problem in some areas over time because of natural wind current because of topography funneling it across the same area over decades

cumulative effect on a small body of stagnant water may be damning and people might go swimming in a pond

Only a billionth of the power of the Sun reaches Earth

Power Plant Fag here
outside of government permitting there are other reasons
Here is Quick run down

>Power companies must diversity
>As Fuel Cost Fluctuate
>Boiler Reactors are Expensive
>HRSG Boilers are module and can go for just a week in an outage
>Nuclear Plants are at some 800-1200 MW of power
>Coal Plant - 800 MW of Power
>Combined Cycle-300 MW Power
Numbers are just rounded
>Forced Outages
>Scheduled Outages
>Its not practical to make all plants nuclear
>You need Peakers
>Nuclear Is Expensive
>Nuclear Also Pays Well
>You do not want to have plants that only produce 1200 mega watts of power running 24/7 with no Peaking Power Units

I can tell you what would happen/is happening
- sea level rise of several meters (from the Greenland and WA ice sheets)
- more intense cyclonic storms
- poleward shift of storm tracks
- increased sinuosity of the extratropical jet and associated changes in weather patterns over much of the NH
- increased extremes of the water cycle
- ocean acidification
- exstirpation of all tropical coral reefs (with one possible exception)
- decline of oxygen content in the oceans
- functionally ice free Arctic ocean in the summer time
- weakening of the overturning circulation in the North Atlantic

Its not so cost efficient when you factor in the costs of maintaining containers and storage for the next millions of years it will take for the nuclear waste to stop being radio active.

Also uranium, just like coal, is a finite resource. Sun, water flow and wind are not.

The power peak could be handled by producing at constant rate and changing the consumption.

Desalinize water, make aluminum, run big pumps, anything that consumes lots of power, but is not time critical during the valley of consumption.

suuure, climatologists still have to actually predict anything with their models

THORIUM
H
O
R
I
U
M

>what is almost every meltdown in human history
god damn why can't people be fucking responsible, even with dangerous shit like this?

The difference being that a little uranium goes a long way, unlike fossil fuels.

>Chernobyl explode in 26 april 1986
>Liquidated in November 1986

What the fuck are you talking about?
You literally did nothing except covering reactor 4 with a roof that was never hermetically sealed.
You didn't remove a single pound of waste from the site and left the corium inside the reactor in a pretty precarious state.

The only real cleanup that will ever be done at Chernobyl is only just beginning. (pic related)

youtube.com/watch?v=qwRYtiSbbVg
assuming gates can shill enough for this it would easily tide us over until fusion.

First, climate models aren't weather forecasts, they're not predict-the-future machines. You give them your best estimates of boundary conditions (aerosol concentration, GHGs, ocean mixing rate,...) and the output is an estimate of the average state of the climate in the future, associated with a fan of uncertainty.

Let's take just one example: the pole-ward shift of storm tracks was predicted by models, first in 2005. It wasn't until the 2010s that this shift was actually observed in ISCCP data and by peak-intensity data (compared to latitude) of cyclones in the Atlantic

Strategically timed large public failures. Probably sabotage courtesy of these

>First, climate models aren't weather forecasts, they're not predict-the-future machines

they are shitty "predictions" that fail to predict anything, no better than a horoscope

>Let's take just one example: the pole-ward shift of storm tracks was predicted by models, first in 2005. It wasn't until the 2010s that this shift was actually observed
so, you had one successful hit, out of how many shots? a broken clock is right twice a day

Yet it's still enough to power all human activity. Clearly harnessing the sun is the only way forward.

did you read what I wrote?
I told you that climate models are never used, nor have ever been meant as prediction-machines.
We would know a lot of the stuff I listed, even if climate models had never been invented, because we can observe the effects of warming in the paleoclimate record.

Because of what can go wrong. There's a 2600 square kilometer area that nobody can live in because of chernobyl

Shilling by oil/gas/coal industry. They made anti-nuclear/pro-solar/wind propaganda. That made it a huge challenge to get all the permits and such needed to build nuclear plants.
As a result we haven't built any new plants or put real effort into R&D on 4th gen reactors. So now we're stuck using aging 2nd and 3rd gen reactors built in the 70s and 80s all over the country.

There's been some progress in getting permission to build new reactors in the last few years, but even those are just new installations of decades old designs, all of which carry the slim possibility of meltdown.
If we hadn't cut funding for experimental reactors in the 90s (thanks dems) we might have commercial 4th gen reactors that can't meltdown by now.

It's a scam of the companies. They earn everything while the nuclear power Station is in service and let the public pay for the thousands of years the burned fuel is arround. The so called reserves founds they had to start are nothing compared to the accumulated future costs.

The vast majority of people are to stupid to make rational decisions.
>nuclear power
>hur durr
>equal
>derp
>nuclear weapons
We are surrounded by morons.

>Yet it's still enough to power all human activity. Clearly harnessing the sun is the only way forward.

We use energy sources based on usability and availability.
Until someone invents a battery that has high energy density, is cheap and has a long life expectancy, solar will never be much more than a sidenote when it comes to supplying electricity. (pic related)