Should we try to move from fossil fuels to nuclear energy until we can figure out a way to go completely green?

Should we try to move from fossil fuels to nuclear energy until we can figure out a way to go completely green?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/UlYClniDFkM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

You should skip Nuclear Fission and go straight to Nuclear Fusion.

That's not realistic, we probably in a best case scenario need to wait 10 - 15 years before we can even think about building any fusion reactors for commercial use.

That gas on the picture is water vapor, you fucking idiot.

Not commercially viable yet.

t. Brazilian intellectual
the fusion reactor will be too expensive to replace fission

Isn't really feasible yet, fission reactors are still fuckhuge expensive and very inefficient considering. Possible decades away from fusion even with some impossible all-expenses-paid research/engineering foundation.

wasted trips
where did the OP implied it wasn't?

worst part is, if tomorrow someone figured out a way to make nuclear fusion commercially viable, you'd STILL have idiots protesting in the streets against it because it contains the word nuclear

Yes. Uranium has an ridiculous energy density, and it's statistically the safest form of energy production. There is lots of it too.

This, apart from cost, probably the biggest problem in nuclear industry is the fear associated with it. Any time you mention it.

>MUH FOOKYOSHEEMA THO???
>MUH CHERNOBELLL?????
>MUH NUCLER EPXLOSN????

green hippie fags purge when?

and when you mention just how many people would die if say, the three-gorges dam burst, you're nothing but a fearmonger

I'm not a green hippie fag. I just like nuclear energy. Solar and wind and whatever can fuck right off, isn't viable for metropolis.

Plus, less people being dead because of coal industry is nice, if you're into that thing.

Nuclear is the best option for non-mobile energy production. The reactors and containment facilities in use today are top notch and very safe. Furthermore, a lesser known aspect of the nuclear program is the fact that nuclear fuels can be reused. The spent fuel contains new metals that are themselves radioactive. These new metals can be processed and used as fuel for another nuclear reactor designed for them.

If a leak or meltdown doesn't happen, there is zero pollution. People's fear of the nuclear boogeyman is the only reason they are not used more often.

Oh silly leaf, nuclear will be the future of energy. Again. This time we will make it though, we have US weapon companies in the race youtu.be/UlYClniDFkM

This means there is a competitive field that is taken seriously by the officials, there are even rumours of a viable thorium reactor in the next 5-10 years but I'm too lazy to google that for you

You know why it's not going to happen? You know how much jobs there are in oil/gas? It's an enormous industry. Going to fission would decimate those jobs.

There are just too many stupid people who need simple jobs, like driving a truck and that's not going to change, especially with the way technology is growing. Around 2020 we'll have a lot of technology to make a LOT of jobs obsolete. That will for sure be an interesting time.

Good luck driving fueling heavy machinery on fucking electricity. Oil will remain vital.

You'll never completely phase out fossil fuels/biofuel because of their fucking fantastic storage capacity. Batteries are ass. Hell, to sell an electric car the first thing you have to do is add a gasoline tank and normal engine to it, so you're carrying two engines and stores of fuel. Electricity doesn't even work for a small bitch ass car.

But yes, nuclear is fucking great stuff and it'd be great to see more of it. Cheaper energy could revitalize industry in much of the west, and nuclear is cheap as shit. Unlike "green" energy it can also meet demand and doesn't wildly fluctuate based on the weather. Europe being less energy dependent on Russia you can take or leave based on your ideals but unless you're German sovereignty is probably a pretty big deal.

>not dyson sphere around the sun and wireless electricity

lmaoing at your life senpai

Solar and wind isn't viable for jack shit, unstable supply means you need either coal or nuclear on backup constantly. Hydro isn't that bad, you get good advance warning for any deficit and it's not as outrageously expensive. But it's still unstable in the long run, requiring you to have coal/nuclear PPs constructed even if you won't use them much. Part of the reason even hydro is much more expensive than nuclear. The only thing that can compete in cost is coal, and that should not be a very hard choice.

I wasn't talking about you, I was referring to the half-brained ""cool"" environmentalist that do not think and research the subject and just say nuclear is bad because they were brainwashed by the fear-mongering media.
I don't object solar, in small number of cases, I just think It won't be necessary with technologies like LFTR

If you could build a reactor so small that it fits a normal sedan car, no one would use oil. Oil is utter shit compared to nuclear when it comes to storing energy.

INB4 Fusion is actually further along than you think in by watching youtube videos and high minded academia and companies trying to cash in on the green energy bullshit like solar panels and wind turbines and fossil industry have depressed fusion energy. We have no clue what the many billions of dollar companies and industries have waiting to introduce when the market is ready.

If the market is willing to pay high dollar for solar panels and wind turbines to meet the political and social desire for "clean energy"... why would you ever introduce fusion energy and lose that high dollar green energy market? These companies will milk existing markets before they would ever drop something as groundbreaking as fusion.

INB4 some liberal green energy university student links to a youtube video about fusion energy

Electricity sure does prevent wear between two metal surfaces

fusion is a fucking meme

the good things about fusion is that it uses hydrogen, which is an extremely abundant fuel source, and the byproducts of the reaction are not as radioactive as fission with uranium or plutonium

that said, the specific energy is only slightly higher, but when you account the temperature needed to get fusion to happen, the huge energy required offsets any energy you get out of it.

Nuclear technology is, by far, the best green technology there is.

People that are for solar are fucking retarded and don't realize the mining going down in the congo to get the minerals for it and the huge space it requires to get a shitty non-continuous output.

You know who truly profits off of solar and wind production? Battery manufacturers. That unpredictable supply has to go somewhere for it to be viable. It goes into lead acid batteries for homesteaders.

>Fusion
lol

Nuclear is green, the main problem is cost.
The way to do it cheaply is using state funding, and replicating one reactor design over and over like South Korea does.

There is also non-photovoltaic solar power.

>Oil will remain vital.
You can just gather gather ethanol from the air somewhat efficient.
No need for fossil fuel.

Clean Coal or Bust!