Why can't people be smart enough to realize nuclear energy is the answer for replacing fossil fuels?

Why can't people be smart enough to realize nuclear energy is the answer for replacing fossil fuels?

Other urls found in this thread:

atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/02/nuclear-weapons-do-not-exist.html?m=1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Nuclear energy isn't real.

It is the answer, but nuclear power can't exist because of human error.

Why can't people be smart enough to realize alternative energy sources?

It's finite

Nuclear power is an alternative to fossil fuels.

Not compared to coal and petroleum.

Deep down, people realize CIA and MOSSAD will false flag with that shit. Cant do nuclear till the insane rothschild jew banker satanists pedo cabal is dealt with.

People are too spooked by simple technology like guns. Nuclear is beyond the rationale of laymen thanks to the numerous fuckups of prior facilities. Add in to that the inferior cost per kwh compared to coal and it becomes virtually impossible to get people moving positively on this issue.

Hydroelectric is the best form of power generation

Because when shit does go wrong it is hyped by media as radiation risks even if it's a fire in the guard shack outside the fence. Add in that most people don't understand it or the safety measures that are required. I mean, they put the words 'this has shown to cause cancer' on a pack of cigarettes and people still think it's a hoax.

I agree that it's better than fossil fuels, but it would only be a temporary replacement, we need to look into renewables instead of nuclear.

Yes. Someone on shark tank was talking about using the waves to generate power.

Dams cost billions to construct, while nuclear power plants cost just under $100 million.

There are 2 major problems with nuclear energy. While the power output is high, until fusion reactors can be built, the ressources used are also limited.
Other than that, there is the problem of wastes. They are very dangerous for hundred of thousands of years, and a large part of the powerplant itself becomes waste if you want to dismantle it. It is a clean energy for our generations, but still a ticking timebomb. And while its very safe, risk zero doesnt exists. And with nuclear energy, when shit it the fan, it creates complete disasters.
It is important we switch asap to fusion, if it becomes real and exploitable, or to other energy sources such as hydroelectrics and geothermal.

Because it is not in its current form.
Too many different wastes lasung thousands years.
Demand could send yellow cake prices to unsustainable height if big counties wete to turn to nuclear.
Proliferation
Security hazards.

Except for the siltation that slowly destroys the downstream ecosystem, you mean?

All energy generation has consequences. There are no free lunches.

Nuclear power is centralized, while solar allows you to be self sufficient and live completely off the grid.

>be america
>try to shill nuclear power to people
>have thousands of square miles of mountains and nothing
>promise to store waste in yucca mountains in nevada
>everyone in nevada is in vegas anyways
>nevada's population of 20 not too busy snorting coke off hookers in casinos protest
>90s era environmentalists join protests
>captain planet says nuclear power is bad so it's bad
>plants have to put waste in casks underground on-site
>liberals have field day writing safety legislation ensuring that nuclear power will never be affordable, or even allow states to break even
>al gore gets asthma and coughs when a car drives by
>wtf we hate oil too
>shill windmills
>a bird hits a windmill blade and dies
>tear it down
>shill hydroelectric
>people tend to live near waterways and building dams relocate people and kills wildlife
>shill solar
>waste from making panels harms environment and they're ugly

Basically environmentalists need to be hanged and Ted Turner goes first because he invented captain planet.

sure, but there is a limit to how many dams you can build. In Scandinavia the limit is 40% of current de-industrialized power consumption.
What do you prefer for the remaining 60% of the power need in Scandinavia and about 70% for the rest of Europe? IMHO Solar and Nuclear are the obvious choices.

KYS, try living near a nuclear plant fagot. Enjoy it when it melts down

That's just a disaster waiting to happen.

One nuclear plant could power your country three times over for next to nothing.

They cant because reactors bear risk and radioisotope thermoelectric generators are expensive as all hell.

Effectively, on a scale of centuries, it is infinite.

Even if they melt down, the radioactive material is contained within a concrete containment vessel

Not only do you need a meltdown to occur, which is rare enough to begin with, but then the radioactive material has to breach the pressure vessel its contained within, and then it again has to breach the concrete containment vessel, just to reach the outside.

The only part of Chernobyl and Fukushima that are unlivable are literally the reactor plants themselves. Retard luddites like you simply don't understand what nuclear power, atoms, or radiation even are.

Protip: solar is actually nuclear.

Exactly this.

>people don't realize "renewable energy" requires non-renewable materials to maintain it.

Take a guess how much toxic (yes actually toxic) heavy metals are deposited into the environment due to solar panels? Now look into how many deaths are caused due to the environmental damages of this heavy metal poisoning. Please compare this number to the total deaths of nuclear accidents since forever and laugh at green fags.

everyone is frightened by it after the chernobyl accident

infinite but dangerous

Fission depends on temperature.. the bigger the temperature, the more intensive is the fission process.... the newer reactors are extremely safe due to the way there can be a temperature treshold for the process, so in the case of a reactor overheating, the domino effect of temperature + fission can be stopped very quickly and in time. As for nuclear waste.. that "problem" is not a problem at all, since it's already solved. It is placed in abandoned mines, deep enough so the ground compensates the radiation for both the surface AND the underground waters. As for fusion, which you've mentioned.... I don't think it's going to become a reality any time soon, since there does not exist a material that can withstand so much heat.. unless there is a very strong magnetic field which can hold the process in its place.. but then again, how are you going to make such a strong magnetic field?.. Anyway.. we can't really afford switching to hydroelectrics and geothermal as our primary energy sources because NEITHER of those can hold an energy system on their own (maybe in some very special cases with small energy consumption but hell, look at big cities and how much they consume). In terms of safety at work.. the least casualties occure in Nuclear plants + you literally recieve more radiation when going to an airport than working in a Nuclear energy plant.. whilst the most casualties occur in Hydroplants. Oh and finally.. when it comes to the "lack" of resources... just read up on Breeder reactors.

Nuclear power is objectively the best form of power.
The amount of power you get is ridiculous in ratio to the waste produced.
The whole world should have moved to nuclear power long ago.

It's widely accepted in the field of power generation that fossil fuels will stick around for a very long time. most countries in the world still produce 70% of their energy with coal and natural gas is clean enough to be feasible forever
Almost unexistant in the world scenario of power generation. Only Italy has a decent % of power produce by hydroelectric

Who will be running these sophisticated power generation facilities in the decades ahead?

Solution is simple, don't let crazy Russians run experiments on your poorly maintained reactor.

Using energy of any kind is a net drain. even solar, the sun will burn out eventually. Nuke reactors are like mini suns that give out ass loads of power compared to what is used. A fist sized lump of uranium in an RTG can power things for decades. Think an electric car that never needs recharging, just a new battery every 20 or 30 years.

>environmentalists need to be hanged and Ted Turner goes first because he invented captain planet
I chuckled.

>Ignoring the countless times disaster either nearly happened or happened

>ignoring IRL stalkers living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone just fine.

Portugal was running for a full week just on wind power alone.

Nobody gives them cheap oil, wind/water is cheaper for them.

Requires plenty of due diligence, which today's (((current year))) society cannot deliver on.

> people won't be that smart anymore if you replace them with retards from shithole countries

Why cant they put the materials in a shuttle and if it ever gets to a critical threshold you just launch it into space

Only problem with nuclear is waste disposal, it can take tens of thousands of years for nuclear waste to become safe, what territory has gone ten thousand years without a tyrannical government or insurgency? Nuclear waste can be used in the production of dirty bombs and so when in the wrong hands is a serious problem.

That being said, it certainly beats pissing away billions on solar panels and wind turbines that dont work and then having to beg Russia for gas.

>only Italy
Ever heard of British Columbia? They get 98% of their power from Hydro (and most of the 2% is power generation on islands disconnected from the main power grid)

I'm aware and not saying it was a free lunch just the best damage/safety vs effectiveness

What are you an eastern bastard so concerned about downstream ecosystem. We've had our hydro system for over half a century now and no major catastrophes

?

>yeah dude let's use nuclear power! it's the obvious answer to the fossil fuel problem!

>*nuclear reactor expldoes and causes chernobyl 2.0 10 seconds later*

Are people this retarded?

Yeah but knowing euro liberal fags they're probably not letting you put multiple dams on every river

>shuttle explodes before reaching orbit

Fuck no! lol

And no it won't be IRL S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Shadow Of Chernobyl like you think, you won't have any vodka or cheap tracksuits and you won't be able to cheeki breeki in the zone, sorry to break your hopes but it'll actually suck.

fossile fuel*

>nuclear energy

Why is no one in this thread red-pilled about nuclear? It literally doesn't exist. (((Einstein))) and (((Oppenheimer))) need I say more?

>Country is in energy crisis
>Won't do nuclear energy cause reasons
fuck these cunts. They just want to squeeze every last fucking penny out of us

Do you even know what happened to cause the containment to fail in chernobyl, retard

Nobody builds RBMKs, moran

chernobyl was human failure, the only good argument against nuclear power is nuclear waste and its storage.

okay, nuclear power to everyone except russians

Are we really comparing British Columbia and Italy in terms of economical influence on the world?
Trust me, I'm in the field (still studying), and if you see the material on the matter you'll laugh. Renewable energy is still close to unexistant, better than the 70's but still unexistant

Chernobyl was a lie. There are people who never left and still live there til this day unharmed.

>fossil fuels
>fossil

its not

3 Mile Island

Chernobyl

Fukashima

Solar and wind power never caused mass evacuations, deaths of thousands, huge swaths of land declared uninhabitable, and genetic mutations.

go away you annoying faggot

The sun. The light from the sun is produced by nuclear reactions.

Hydro has very specific requirements for it to be feasible. You also need a FUCKING DAM. You are very stupid

Nuclear Weapons/Energy does not exist.

atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/02/nuclear-weapons-do-not-exist.html?m=1

Read the comments as well. Lots of good info and links.

*ahem* Fukushima?

So make one in the middle of the oceannnn?

>That picture
Most of the calculations were done by hand you fucking imbecile. The computers served for very specific functions only. I'm so fucking sick of that meme

You mean, ignoring the 3 catastrophes due to human error that happened over a 70-yr long operation?

read

wasn't human error as far as i know. the tsunami is what fucked it up. technology will get better and safer with time if we continue to pursue nuclear energy. for reach disaster something is learned. that's the way it is and will always be. stop being a pussy

Also human error, shitty design and money stolen from repair funds. They had cracks in the walls and welded shut the explosion mitigation panels which were supposed to open because they spooked the workers.

this^

Solar energy, wind energy and water energy or gtfo, nuclear plants are literally powered by the material that can unironically destroy entire cities, uranium and plutonium is WAY too unreliable to be sources of electrical energy.

The shills couldn't blame CO2 on natural climate change

But now rivers in China are red with residues from solar/wind production.

>wasn't a human error

See what i mean? Even if no human error is made in a nuclear power plant, nuclear disasters can still happen, nuclear power is way too unreliable. Enough said.

the russian said it was human error so my post was incorrect

Everything is, the Sun included. What's he point of infinite anything when we will be engulfed in an eventual star system obliterating burnout anyways?
>inb4 leave, colonize other planets
Sci-fi pipedream. Human biology cannot survive crossing the Van Allen belt.

You know 3 mile island is still in use right? The meltdown was so controlled that it’s still safe to be there and the only part not used anymore is the small section where it happened.

I live about 3 miles away from it funny enough

Yeah in the same way that "real communism has never been tried", "well designed nuclear power plants have never been tried".

Always but not available to all. Plus it is affected by drought so having nuclear as backup is wise.

see

Solar screws with migrating birds biological clocks, leading to their deaths, and wind turbines destroy nature by scaring away the wildlife in a large radius and pull bird clusters into the blades.
Even nuclear is more green than this if contained properly.

Well, dosens of power plants have successfully worked for their entire design period, so safe nuclear power plants HAVE been tried and worked flawlessly.

The power you are using to communicate here right now is very likely to be nuclear generated.

Just to clarify, i'm not COMPLETELY against using nuclear power, i support using nuclear power in military submarines aswell as aircraft carriers, hell, i support nuclear power plants as a civillian electric power source, IF the nuclear power plant itself is nowhere near any cities or towns, i am okay with nuclear power plants if they are on top of oil-rig like water platforms, OR if they are far away from any civillian-populated areas.

>Muh accident
People who think every nuclear plant is a bomb doesn't understand how much improvement and safety is put into them. The number of incidents are minimal and their effects decay in less than a decade.
>Muh alternate energy
Solar power components require the most dirty and pollution generating mining operations.
Wind power destroy the landscape and create deathzones for birds
Hidro electric produces dead water basins that destroy ecosystems downstream and are expensive to create.
All this alternate energy are also unreliable because they depend on weather and we lack batteries to hold power.
>Muh finite uranium
Apart from nuclear power through fission nuclear power that utilizes fusion is on the rise which uses only heavy water (easily obtained at Sea)

Nuclear power was always the energy of the future we are progressing backwards

So if they fail in water, the contaminants are spread by currents all over the ocean?

It has huge up front costs, takes ages to build and the tech we currently have creates lots of waste. Nuclear fuel reprocessing doesn't decrease waste in any significant way, also it creates accidents with expensive clean up costs.

The next gen reactors with high burn rates are pie in the sky as far as commercial designs is concerned. Just as much as efficient energy storage for renewable energy is.

If the US creates an efficient multi-day energy storage for renewables, it's almost certain that nuclear energy will not be able to compete. Solar and wind get cheaper every day and nuclear doesn't.

So maybe it would be better if the US invested more in next gen nuclear research, but it's not a guaranteed panacea and renewables aren't a guaranteed failure.

Well yeah that's true, which is why like i said here i'm okay with nuclear power plants IF they are far away from any areas populated with people.

So you are ok with the most dangerous use of nuclear reactors, but not the most efficent one?
Solar and wind are NOT ENOUGH to supply the west with sufficient power, much less the world.

Nuclear is the best stopgap power solution, but it also has extreme long term issues with waste storage. Nothing is going to be able to match its energy output, its small footprint, but its still not a perfect solution.

Long term we need efficient multijunction solar panels. A monocrystalline silicon cell has a theoretical peak efficiency of 29%~, however materials like perovskites have reached well past the 20% efficiency barrier as well. In fact some computer modeled perovskite structures exceeded 20% conversion efficiency. This is important because the two absorb light on different wave lengths, and can compliment each other. The use of multiple elements creates whats known as a "multi junction" cell. We may have three, four, even five junction panels that reach total conversion efficiency over 60%.

In America on average we receive over 1000kWh per square meter per year in solar energy.
Capturing 60% of that would mean 600kWh worth of electricity free every year, from a small 1sq meter panel.
Typical energy consumption in the US is 11,000kWh per year. Simply covering the roofs of residential homes with these multi junction cells would slash the need for domestic energy projection.
The American South West could become 100% solar powered within the next 20 years if we actually invested in solar power. This isn't far fetched tech. Silicon photovoltaics and perovskites are mass produced well fleshed out things, even two junction cells are nothing out of the ordinary. If the US can set DARPA to create advanced robotics, artificial organs, computer chips that function like brain cells, and extreme upper atmosphere scramjet craft then they could accomplish a 5 junction 60% efficient solar panel.

America needs to be 100% energy dependent. We need to be a fully sovereign nation not dependent upon any foreign state.

The well designed ones are literally working around the world you fucking snownigger, here's your (you)

>Other than that, there is the problem of wastes. They are very dangerous for hundred of thousands of years
That is a problem of the pressurized light water reactors. It produces plutonium which is fucking poison. Anons, realize that there are reactor designs that burn that shit. Check out the Traveling Wave Reactor.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor

A traveling-wave reactor (TWR) is a type of nuclear fission reactor that can convert fertile material into usable fuel through nuclear transmutation, in tandem with the burnup of fissile material. TWRs differ from other kinds of fast-neutron and breeder reactors in their ability to use fuel efficiently without uranium enrichment or reprocessing, instead directly using depleted uranium, natural uranium, thorium, spent fuel removed from light water reactors, or some combination of these materials.

the USA has 700,000 TONS of depleted uranium hexafluoride rotting in tanks doing nothing.

As we speak, China is building one (online in 2020?)

Well that was just a suggestion, but you get my point, as long as the nuclear power plants are nowhere near cities or towns or hell even a small random rural barnyard then i am okay with nuclear power plants.

with current rate of consumption humans have only 200 years worth of uranium
and nuclear is now only some 15% of world electricity
if all electricity, cars and factories turn nuclear you're looking for some 5-10 years of nuclear energy then it's back to something else when you're out of uranium
now to answer your question
because smart people know the info above^

The problem with solar power is its irregularity. It spikes when it wants, where it wants, unlike regulated power plants. So you need storage; but there is no effective way of storing large amounts of energy. Batteries degrade, and hydroelectric storage can't be used everywhere and is worse than a dam in place of it. No, nukes have to be used until fusion is on its feet, so for the next 50-60 years.

People are still falling for the muh dirty bomb meme?

Ask any weapons expert about dirty bombs, they are not more effective or more dangerous than conventional or chemical weapons.

They simply do not spread the radiation far and wide enough, the particles will quickly settle in one place that you can evacuate and close off.

Unless you use an extremely powerful explosive to spread it which at that point the explosion would do most of the killing in the irradiated area any way.

The dirty bomb meme was just used to scare boomers they are impractical if all you want to do is kill people.