Nuclear energy is the safest, cheapest and cleanest energy. Why aren't we using it?
Nuclear energy is the safest, cheapest and cleanest energy. Why aren't we using it?
Because it's not.
Also nuke waste that politics won't let us do anything with.
It's not even that much and new nuclear power designs generate much less.
Explain how it's not the safest or cleanest.
Your right to an extent. It is relatively cheap until you need to refuel the core, and clean until you need to dispose of the nuclear waste. It also has advantages over wind and solar seeing how it can produce energy 24/7 without having to worry about environmental conditions. On the negative side, when it fucks up, it's a fuck up on a global scale unfortunately.
Chernobyl happened almost 4 decades ago and it was built by the soviet union where safety didn't matter.
Cuz humans are stupid and afraid of most everything. That's why any type of progress takes so fucking long.
Cheap energy for all make it difficult for the left to drag us into socialism.
It is. But instead of using uranium use other elements like Thorium and pretty much you won´t fallout disasters happening and it´ll be a far cheaper and cleaner energy than solar and wind energies.
For the same reasons we haven't colonized mars.
What would you say if I told you they discovered an energy source that is clean and efficiant, and you can use it to heat your home, cook your food, heat your water etc. The downside is it may cause a couple hundred homes to explode every year.
Why don't doesn't the government has out power orbs instead of storing them underground for thousands of years in lead lined pits? A barrel can produce enough to comfortably warm someone got the rest of their life.
Because it isnt
Yucca Mountain is a boondoggle of epic proportions. there is no way we can expand nukes with out dealing with the consequences of the stuff we already did.
Because when it fucks up it means a whole population within a 100 mile radius need to be evacuated and the land becoming uninhabitable rather than some dumb sea animals covered in a bit of oil
Because of bad press and people have fucked up bad in recent years.
Because people are fucking idiots.
I had to do a report on this and found some guys website that attempted to publicise all the dumb shit found in NRC audits. And I do mean dumb shit, emergency shut-off valves installed backwards, warning lights on the operator control panel just not being wired etc.
please tell me when an error in a solar/wind farm caused a signifcant portion of land to become uninhabitable
It needs proper legislation and safety measures - ideally by an international body completely devoid of politics
Because we are paranoid instead of trusting progress and new technologies
Lol hey faggot, I live 30 miles from a nuclear plant. Only people in a 20 mile radius have to evacuate outside the radius if anything ever happens. Which never does
Thorium is so slow to react you'd pull the control rods and come back in a week
Yes safe Like tchernobyl, Fukushima, Harrisburg, Kursk, ....
m8, the chernobyl zone is 1000 sq miles.
>only people on a 20 miles radius have to evacuate
Okay faggot, enjoy your 3 limbed baby
>equating an RMBK reactor to modern western ones
We’ve proven that even the brightest of us can’t predict the future. Things like earthquakes, volcanos, flooding, and terrorism and god forbid, military’s attack, can turn a safe and reliable energy source into a permanent disaster.
yeah I saw the TV show too, my point is about the radius.
>Why aren't we using it?
Because the oil and gas industry fund and run a very successful scare campaign against it
When you factor in plant cost, security cost, reactor engineering probls is that reactors aren't standardized it's actually not cheapest. It has the cheapest marginal cost but that's something completely different
Fucking, right?! Even the waste from 10 years ago can be used as fuel with modern refinement
Most modern reactors actually have a building around the reactor designed to contain the worst case scenario explosion, so there would be no radius.
RMBK reactors, on the other hand, have no containment building at all. The remaining reactors in service would make me a little nervous, but not anything modern.
Has nothing at all to do with people cutting corners when they were pushing nuclear to the World. Not at all
Because we don't know what to do with the waste. We are selfishly making it the problem of the next couple of thousand generations.
Yet people are living in pripyat again. The only real exclusion zone remaining in Chernobyl is the reactor itself.
Or one of the cheapest at any rate, renewables also have ridiculously low marginal costs. Nuclear doesn't mix well with green energy either, that distinction goes to NAT gas combined cycle plants which can ramp up and down production fast to match changes in sunshine and wind. Nuclear then too suffers the unfortunate problem of what to do with the waste
If we don't ditch coal there won't be a next thousand generations.
I consider it an investment in the future of humanity
>people are living in pripyat again
Doesn't produce enough electricity.
We need to get off coal NOW
People living in the Issues nuclear testing sites in Kazakhstan too, alot of the kids come out looking so fucked up they wouldn't be out of place as extras in the hills have eyes. The fact that people live in a place is irrelevant, the question is the health effects
Google it. It's true.
US has cut emissions by 10% since 2010 that's statistically significant
The radiation doses are lower than pilots receive flying all day above the atmosphere. It's fine to live there now.
Humans are worse than radiation confirmed.
But not enough. Plus it's not the US that's the worry, thier coal is relatively clean, double burning / ionized smoke stacks. We need nuclear in the tinpot countries that burn everything they can to make dirty power. We all share the atmosphere and will all suffer for thier lack of consideration
>and clean until you need to dispose of the nuclear waste.
Except the waste is clean in terms of not doing anything bad for the environment
>On the negative side, when it fucks up, it's a fuck up on a global scale unfortunately.
It did once in a state hellbent on not giving a fuck about any safety, meanwhile in the other 2 cases it was handled. Sure Fukushima is not a place you want to live in now, but one city is not the same as "a fuck up on a global scale".
India, China, and Africa. It'll happen when fusion is viable.
A new nuke plant hasn't been built in the US (or most of the world) for decades. Nukes are baseload power - they are extremely expensive and difficult to turn on / off, so they don't provide support when power demand peaks, only the constant "base" amount of power. Given the legal hoops developers have to jump through, just not worth it.
Being radioactive isnt good for the environment
Mind you they were also literal years behind in safety audits because they outright refused them, had undertrained staff (just pushing some buttons, right? How trained does Ivan need to be?), were enriching uranium behind closed doors, etc.
It was the equivalent of storing your gunpowder above the fireplace and being baffled as to why it went up.
Fukushima. Chernobyl. Nuclear arms testing. Here's your (You) idiot.
Real talk the best thing to invest in to fight climate change aren't all these NGOs, it's labs and university that are researching fusion
>when fusion is viable
The atmosphere will be in runaway greenhouse before that unicorn pops it's head up. That's why we need nuclear as a stopgap
Otherwise earth ends up like venus
Fukushima, three mile isle?
HBO's miniseries created the biggest Dunning-Kreuger effect in the past decade
Operator error isnt limited to race or ethnicity.
Things that should be and what will come to pass are completely different. Hitler stuffed 9 million Jews in ovens that was horrible but it also happened. How bad will climate change be? Impossibility to say. Can one have a reasonable expectations that countries such as China and India will dramatically change their energy grids hampering immediate growth to fight global warming? Not until it's too late.
because it takes Uranium and shit, and we just don't have enough
Dont build it on an island that is on top of 2 continental platforms then...
Dont be a retard that ignores all safety.
>Nuclear arms testing.
Arguing for this is like saying we should not make food because soldiers sometimes eat that.
Or stop making fuel because tanks.
Three mile island is not talked about half the time because the safety regulations went right.
>what is an overhyped disaster
Quite literally fucking nothing that was overblown by the media. If you wanted to point out something truly disastrous, you'd mention the Khystym Disaster or the Goiâna Accident - clusterfucks we STILL barely talk about or mention.
>there would be no radius
Good luck selling that globalist propaganda when it explodes and you're dead because of it
>living in pripyat
Illegally, because every scientist in the world would agree that it's still deadly dangerous
I'm glad to know you trust google more than trained scientists
You can use other material than uranium, and to that effect uranium is very plentiful.
Where do you think lead comes from?
More troubling Belarus is going to dramatically shrink the size of their part of the exclusion zone to make more farm land, to grow the food, that they'll sell to their citizens
Fukushima was largely a big nothingburger.
Nope. It's fine. Every scientist will tell you It's higher risk than living greater than 100km from the elephants foot, but lower dosage than other humans regularly survive without complication.
The only reason no one lives there other than squatters is because there is no reason. It's not a centre of employment anymore so it will remain a ghost town.
Different user here.
It produces the least ammout of waste per kw/h of power of any power plant. It produces 0 green house gasses.
Yes, the waste is dangerous but it is highly concentrated.
We haven't built a new nuke power plant in the USA since the 60s because people are afraid of it.
Modern nuke plants that use things like thorium are even safer then the natural gas plants some states use.
Their is a reason that the military powers everything with nuclear user. It really is the best.
Basically the tech is dead because people are afraid of the word and know none of the facts.
It's ignorance and other industry like the oil lobby don't want us using it. SO they actively campaign against it.
How is it any different than what's currently happening? People live right on the "edge" of the exclusion zone already - literally meters from where the fence line starts. To legitimately, hoenstly believe that the radiation truly doesnt cross that imaginary boundary - that it both suddenly stops right there and is 100% purely inhabitable from there on - is asinine
>because people are afraid of it.
Because of propaganda fuelled by idiots and funded by big oil.
Yes, plants built in the 50s and 60s had many problems.
New nuclear power plant use a completely different system.
Also, modern fuel cycles can turn old waste generated by previous generations and transmute it into far less dangerous stuff. Problem is you need a modern breeder reactor and no one is funding new capital projects.
Also, the lifetime dose living next to a nuclear plant is LOWER than what you'd get living next to a coal plant because fly ash is actually radioactive and released in huge quantities. That's not taking into account the respiratory problems.
Where do we properly dispose the waste?
Africa seems choice
>there's no reason to live anywhere because life is meaningless
Yeah so? What's your point
You are being purposefully obtuse.
Because people are stupid
Yes, coal plants produce more radioactive substances then a nuclear power plant.
If there was a reason for people to return to Pripyat, they would. Safely.
>3 Mile Island
Quite literally zero casualties and was blown out of proportion because it happened in the US where we swore it never would. Theres barely significant evidence to support a direct rise in cancers around the area either.
the Fukushima problem can be solved by not building a power plant in an area prone to fucking earthquakes and tsunamis
Fukushima wouldnt have happened in the yorkshire dales
Not what I said user. A nuclear plant produces far more but it is contained in pools and dry casks. A coal plant *releases* more to the general public.
Signed t. boomer, internet scientist
Until you get your black swan event.
Not if you include maintenance, cost of dismantling and storage of waste.
Well, that's somewhat true. Apart from the radioactivity.
Coat it in glass and put it at the bottom of a disused salt mine. No more problem.
Glad you agree it's not safe to live there, then.
Because it is not clean, especially when constructed by soviet superior engineers
>but mah 3 eyed fish dude
How so? Or are you one of those natural climate change deniers.
Signed a millenial engineer with high employability who chooses to work in the field because I believe in it.
>The atmosphere will be in runaway greenhouse
Isn't excessive land use per kW/h not one of the main drawbacks of solar and wind themselves?