Why don't we just build a ton of nuclear plants to replace coal power?
>less radioactive than coal
>costs about the same
>less pollution
>more output so less ugly plants
Why isn't the US moving to an all-nuclear power grid until completely pollutant-free sources of energy are feasible to roll out?
Because of the incompetent fuckups that were Cernobyl, 3 mile island, and Fukushima.
Many people fear the idea of working in one of these shitty plants and becoming the next Ouchi.
Because muh nuclear is bad
because the education system has produced a mass of arrogantly-ignorant driveling drooling imbeciles that think it is nothing except satanic black magic that can do nothing except create some actual hell on earth
same message, more or less words
wehavethisthreadeveryday.jpg
Green movements started off as anti-nuclear, so they hate it.
>Guy's why are we still coal mining? Those cave ins and lung cancer are taking too many lives!
>Okay let's use our newfound nuclear capabilities.
>only a few incidents occur, but scaremongers have field day
>Guys why aren't we learning from Chernobyl? DO we want our kids near that junk?
>Okay we'll make clean energy.
>turns out shit's inefficient
>Guys why are we burning our money on that useless stuff when we could be using coal! It's a lot cheaper and we have tons of it.
And repeat cycle.
because solar is better, and we can't control our nuclear waste
this, because leftists like Bernie are retarded.
>Ouchi
That name will never not crack me up
Then there's this problem of nuclear waste they have to store somewhere, which should be there for thousand years without coming in contact with lizards and producing Godzillas.
>leftists like Bernie
*Jews like Bernie
>don't build nuclear reactors in the Ring of Fire
>don't build nuclear reactors in the 1970's
There, I solved your problem.
The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. We should use more of that. Shale oil and Natural Gas are also abundant here. Nuclear is ok as long as we don't have another Fukushima or Chernobyl.
>falling for the solar jew
lel
To be fair to those people, if stupid people like them were running a nuclear reactor, it would probably explode. And the nuclear power plant is mandated to give 'stupid people' jobs if it involves a government backed grant.
Because the anti-nuclear lobby is extremely well funded and organized controlled opposition for the hydrocarbon industry.
i actually looked into the total death toll following chernobyl. turns out something like 5k people died, including everything, and this is pretty much the worst case scenario.
compare this to about 800k people dying every year as a direct consequence of burning fossil fuels, and that is when everything goes as planned.
the reason why people fear nuclear power is pretty much answered here thinking about it, does anybody know of any actual, non-fearmongering research on the effects of a full scale nuclear war?
is it gonna lead to the world depicted in all those post-apocalyptic movies? maybe it wont even be so bad?
>nuclear energy would eliminate carbon emissions, but hated by the left
Biggest redpill
Hey OP, great question.
Nuclear and Coal serve very different energy needs. We sit electrical use in to two categories in the consumer market. Baseload, and Peak Load.
Baseload is the amount of energy always being used at any time of day, where are Peak Load is the times of day where more energy is used for short periods. Pic related.
The energy grid has to be constantly managed to ensure it's not overloaded, while still having enough energy in it to provide consumers.
Nuclear provides a lot of steady energy, but at a relatively consistent output, which can't be increased or decreased to desired levels. Think of it like an off and on switch. This makes it great for baseload but bad for peaking which requires adjustable output.
Coal is great because it's cheap and can have it's output adjusted. Think of a dimmer switch. Natural gas is the same way. It can be turned on and adjusted up and down during peak energy demand.
So we see that the electrical system needs a portfolio of energy sources to work. Until we have proper storage tech on a large scale, we can't just have one source, unless of course it's coal or natural gas for example, because it's a very adjustable source.
I should also point out, that while some tech has allowed nuclear to have a somewhat more flexible output, it's still not to the amount needed for rapid peak load power, and the extremely low marginal costs of operation of a nuclear power plant require maximal operations at all times.
>we can't control our nuclear waste
we control it just fine. Hell, it's even useful. where do you think we get most of our helium-3 from?
Because it's so efficient that the only way for a company to justify investing billions in its operation would be to massively overcharge for power, thus increasing their profit margins. The only way it would get implemented would be for the state to turn power infrastructure into a national utility so electricity could be sold at the rate it actually costs to run the plant. Power companies probably would specifically lobby against this to prevent loss of control over the market
Real talk, are we any closer to solving cold fusion?
I think the problem is it's incredibly time consuming arranging the fuel rods safely as you have to use a mechanical arm and it has to be at a steady pace. They should just pay me 100$ an hour to do it with some rubber maid gloves by hand.
Might as well wait at this point, fusion is not far off.
>scientific american is now this sophistic
Why not build more modern liquid metal and molten salt reactors that can't melt down by design and can run off nuclear waste already available?
Well shit, I had no idea about any of that, but it makes perfect sense. Thank you, leafanon.
Is there a possibility that storage will advance to a point where a single, steady supply of power would do? I imagine buffering enough power to cover all eventualities would require enormous capacity, well beyond what any battery system could achieve now.
The radiation is playing Space Invader on your DNA and you're only asking for $100/hr? Jesus man have some self-respect and ask for $10,000/hr.
>less radioactive than coal
it only takes Plutonium-239 24,000years to reach half life. Uranium-235 has a half-life of 703.8 million years.