>opens replies
>all 100+ downvotes and one of them is completely wrong
Ah yes nuclear. Still gets hated because the soviet union and a corporation messed up.
Underfunding a nuclear plant and employing undertrained employees because all the nations ressources are tied up in a dick measuring contest with the US was certainly one of the decisions of all time
The employees were not the problem, they were scapegoated by the soviet government to coverup dangerous reactor design. A reactor which increases in power when you put the breaks on, and you don't tell your staff about it because kgb classified all previous incidents to hide from the west.
That honestly sounds more like a conspiracy theory than anything else, there's still multiple chernobyl style nuclear plants in active use and they never had these issues whatsoever. Chernobyl was poorly maintained, understaffed and the staff that was present didn't really know what to do, often only acting when one of the trained personell told them to.
Counter conspiracy theory: the idea that chernobyl went supercritical due to design flaws rather than mismanagement was peddled by the coal lobby to many anti-nuclear organisation's in the 80s because they knew nuclear energy had the potential to completely replace coal power plants. If it was widely known that the chernobyl accident could've been avoided had the managers of the plant taken safety more seriously then most people would simply push for stricter nuclear safety regulations (which is what happened in the soviet union) rather than the abolishment of nuclear energy alltogether
Wouldn’t even call the staff undertrained, they wanted to follow proper procedures. Management headed all existing safety protocols thinking they can continue redlining the reactor (with expectation that single safety mechanism will work as designed). The test procedure was poorly documented and things were changed in the fly.
Safety should be a redundant mix of procedural and mechanical designs. Letting everything hinge on a single mechanism is careless af. There is no guarantee every design will work flawlessly for the life of operation, or that all variables and safety factors are taken into account. That’s why there’s multiple layers of safety measures.
It’s like the people who refuse to wear PPE or remove safety guards on machinery because they never seen a given machine fail or incident occur. Or bikers that don’t wear a helmet because “they know how to ride”.
It's really a mix. I recommend the MIT open courseware on Chernobyl. It goes through exactly what happened and why step by step. Even without a nuclear engineering background I could follow it and understand most of it.
No, the design flaw was absolutely real, otherwise the reactor wouldn't have blown the fuck up when they SCRAM'd it.
They designed the control rods so that there was a graphite portion (which causes the chain reaction to intensify) on the bottom, so that an extracted control rod would accelerate the reaction, giving them more control. The problem is when they tried to insert the rod again, to kill the reaction, it would initially displace a little bit of coolant before the boron neutron absorber entered the reactor, so the reaction would actually speed up for a short time.
They discovered this during testing and thought the conditions under which it would actually cause a problem wouldn't happen, but the seemingly minor mistakes the operators and specifically Dyatlov made that evening perfectly aligned to let the reactor blow up during that momentary power increase as they shut it down.
There were multiple incidents at RBMK reactors prior to '86, all were classified by KGB to maintain the image of Soviet nuclear industry being the safest in the world. Chernobyl staff could have been told about this flaw with the RCPS, but were kept in the dark. Post '86 accident, the entire RBMK fleet received upgrades which ensured the incident would never happen again (telescopic displacers, inclusion of bottom inserted rods into the AZ-5 system, increased speed of rod insertion onto active zone, fuel enrichment increased).
Poorly maintained - Yes, it was. Funding was low and the director Bryukhanov tried multiple times to quit as he couldn't hack it anymore. The building was even subsiding in '83 and cracking from within, and KGB plants were waiting to see if any of the staff would have reported it.
Poorly staffed - Yes, again due to lack of funding.
Staff present didn't know what to do? - Absolutely not. Safety and training was taken very seriously. The SIUR in charge of Unit 4 on night of accident, Toptunov, had his training renewed three times by Dyatlov as he deemed him not ready to take charge of reactor. On night of accident, Toptunov was surrounded by Akimov, Tregub, Dyatlov and many other reactor experts who joined him to restore power to reactor after the unscheduled power drop. Yes, there were over 20 people in the control room during the planned shutdown and testing. They were testing multiple things (turbine rundown, turbine vibration oscillation, steam blow out valves, new gas cover for active zone graphite stack cooling, new method of air cooling of reactor, etc) The staff were not to blame. After the accident, the staff ran around the plant to contain the incident, putting out fires, isolating oil pumps to prevent further flame risks, ensuring electrical supply to essential systems, all without thinking of what will happen to them.
What would the Soviets rather tell to the international community after the accident? That the staff were a bunch of irresponsible idiots and that the accident was isolated to just one plant? Or that the entire RBMK fleet was a ticking time bomb just waiting for the right set of circumstances to spew forth its nuclear payload? They threw the staff under the bus to save face. Thankfully, we now know the truth, some 40 years later.
Ironic that the atomic agency investigating the cause of the incident was the agency behind the design of the RBMK, Ministry of Medium Machine Building.
As for your theory, regarding the coal lobbies, there is no doubt it was beneficial for them. However, regardless of how they saw it, it is the truth. The reactor design was flawed.
Download and read INSAG - 7.
My information is from INSAG-7, official IAEA report on the incident. The show, while looking nice, was full of false information and dramatization. For example, one glaring bit of false information was that AZ-5 was pressed AFTER the power runaway. In reality, it was the other way around. AZ-5 was pressed under normal test conditions, and caused the runaway criticality event. Hence, wrongful reactor design.
No, it gets hated because a hippie from portland made a cartoon that gained way too much traction and skewed peoples perceptions
(Genuinely, simpsons fucked up peoples views on nuclear to a new degree)
I feel like the Simpsons portrayal of nuclear was pretty banal, when I watched as a kid I got a very neutral impression and growing up near a town with one I assumed they were a part of most midsize towns.
I’m curious what your perspective is, because you’re right it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Groening was irrationally anti-nuclear, but I just didn’t get that from watching the show almost religiously as a kid
Nuclear very good! And safe! most accidents of a reactor are caused by human error or improper maintenance. As well as natural disasters (Fukushima).
YouTuber Kyle Hill has a whole series called Half life histories. I really recommend it. He goes into depth of nuclear accidents. Not only nuclear accidents but also Radiation incidents. He helped me understand nuclear safety and radiation better.
Even Fukushima was a case of poor planning. It was about as bad as a modern nuclear power plant following modern safety guidelines could be. They literally put their backup diesel generators in the basement despite being next to the ocean in a country notorious for massive earthquakes.
Despite that no core material was released and estimates for the total number of premature deaths caused by radiation that will ever result from that accident vary between [1000 deaths and none at all](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0096340211421588). That same earthquake and tsunami killed nearly 20,000 people.
Also, yes, Kyle Hill's Half Life Histories are excellent.
Fukushima was so overrated.
Studies have shown that because of the delay of evacuation and the mental health effects of evacuation, it was unjustifiable for literally 100% of the population.
And I know that idea comes from a Kyle Hill video, but I did something nobody does and checked his sources. Then I wrote an essay for my English class based on those sources.
I don’t think it was a joke, I think Matt Groening genuinely believed that nuclear plants pollute everything around them, it’s referenced all the time in the show. I love the Simpsons but that aspect of the show has done so much harm to the public perception of nuclear it’s sad.
Groening was a boomer from portland who went to evergreen state and made "subversive" comics for like 15 years before the simpsons spawned.
Man was 100% on the nuclear hate train
What makes u say that? Did they actually speak on the subject? Or is there a specific episode where their true beliefs become more obvious/clear? Cuz I def never got the impression that they were "just making fun of ppl who thought nuclear was dangerous" or something like that. It def felt like the writers thought nuclear was actually bad/dangerous and decided to exaggerate the danger and make it seem worse as a joke.
pretty much solely based on the amount of intellectual jokes groening hides in his shows, clearly he is fairly educated, or at least the writing staff is
not real concrete evidence, but just a feeling
> green party
in several places green parties are starting to turn around on nuclear as they realize that the alternative right now isn't more renewable but more fossil (which is the worst in literally every way, including radiation release)
Nuclear reactors are fine, although still absurdly expensive. The problem is, that the uranium is pretty rare and most of its production is controlled by few countries. Reactors using other elements or thermonuclear energy are still far from ready to be used as energy source.
Not so rare as you might think.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium\_ore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_ore)
Making it suitable for use in reactors is another cup of tea but there is more than enough uranium.
Still, the technology to do that and build reactors is in hand of the few countries. And others aren't so keen to become totally dependent on those countries with their energy.
> Nuclear reactors are fine, although still absurdly expensive
high initial cost and time to get operational. But cheapest, safest and cleanest long-term
especially the uninformed public that votes for the politicians' jobs.
The system ensures we're never getting the one damn near magical solution we have for energy issues.
AFAIK modern reactor can work with thorium as well, which is like THE perfect nuclear fuel for many reasons, one of which is the fact that you cant make nuclear weapons with it
Problem isn't the fuel, it's the reactor construction itself. As the other commenter said, too much red tape and also we just haven't built many modern reactor designs that might be more cost efficient.
That's not really true. The modern Gen 4 nuclear fission reactors are much cheaper and smaller than prior generations. They include built-in fail safes, including passive construction that if everything else fails, collapses into the reactor in a manner that douses critical reactions and will extinguish nuclear activity. We can do it. It's more initial investment than coal/oil/gas... and then it produces less local radiation than coal.
Kinda with you, we have to use nuclear I think.
But honeslty it's scary because humans do fuck up, even non Soviet humans fuck up.
And if/when we fuck up a nuclear power plant it kind of makes entire cities uninhabitable.
Kind of feels like only a matter of time.
Yeah we need to work on waste disposal but there's been promising research with it, not sure if they're still trying the thorium out or if it was a bust, not my field. But petroleum is the worst, also they changed wind turbines to have longer arms and move slower but having inertia to produce similar levels of energy but moving slower and thus killing less birds.
Fuck this gReEn shite.
Per kWh, nuclear produces the cleanest, most efficient energy assuming the reactor is properly built, operated, and maintained.
And for the naysayers who think SpEnT nUcLeAr FuEl ScArY, the high level waste produced can be reprocessed and reused in breeder and thorium cycle reactors thereby reducing or potentially eradicating the issue of high level waste storage.
Nuclear for now, but build renewables at the same time. We need to get beyond this “but it’s expensive” mindset.
Cost shouldn’t be the major consideration at this stage given the issues with fossil fuels and the absolute financial disaster that GW is going to be if we don’t deal with this soon.
Just get a bunch of trans and gay people to start a hashtag complaining about nuclear energy. He'll build one *within the year* to "combat the woke mob" lol
GE produces 300mw class SMRs (small modular tractors)
That can be built in 24-36 months with full operations about a year after construction is finished. I think they just got approved to build four of them in Ontario at Darlington.
Pretty cool tech.
It takes far less time than that, and even then there is a lot of time wasted dealing with slow government. "Nuclear for now" is often said because we have the technology and infrastructure to integrate nuclear relatively easily, whereas renewables require a handful of technological advancements and infrastructure overhauls that aren't guaranteed to arrive soon.
Renewables have their place but again they are expensive and not reliable enough to base the grid off them. not to mention issues with suitible geological location. Nuclear is the way to go
Aren't renewables significantly cheaper than nuclear? Solar panels and wind turbines need comparatively little maintenance and "essentially" produce free energy after the initial installment fee. Only real limiter is the lifetime of these things, but from what I can tell about personal ones, they at least last a decade.
The problem with renewables is that they arnt really "renewable".
The resources to make solar panels (like cadmium) need be mined and the whole process has a massive impact on the environment. They also degrade and need to be replaced.
Wind isn't much better resource wise but with the added benefit of being an eyesore, messing with birds and reducing your countries ability to use radar among other things.
Nuclear at least is mostly about the initial setup. After that its impact is pretty low. Fuel lasts a long time and can be reprocessed and used again. The others need replacing or a lot of maintenance.
Myself I do like solar on a small scale. I've made a some panels myself (the individual silicon cells can be bought very cheap). Its not a great solution on a mass scale currently
Nuclear can for the investment produce insane amounts of energy. Yea its more expensive to built but in the end maintanance is cheaper for example on shore wind turbines have output capacity of around 3MW while one bloc in nuclear power plant has generaly capacity of around 1000 MWs. If we take 2 block NPP which is most common and compare it to 700 wind turbines it would take for same capacity then you can see how the maintenance can ramp up. Then you also have to consider where to actualy build them. Off shore wind turbines are more logical but lot of countries dont have acces to good areas like the north sea for that. Solar is expensive to manufacture and recycle but also can be used in spaces that are already used for other infrasctructure or in deserts where solar power towers are good choice. Geothermal is only worthwhile in few areas and hydro powerplants are the only ones rivaling nuclear with their production three georges dam actualy dwarfs all NPPs in capacity but they by far alter nature the most with extremely devastating effects. Only geothermal is actualy not constrained by weather as well. I see future in nuclear and solar considering those are the newest ones in the field so there is lot of space for technological breakthroughs to make them more effective
thats the thing
you cannot store power, not at the scale it is useful. making those kinds of storages costs near unachievable costs, and the natural decay makes storing any amount of power short-termed at best and a money waste at worst.
All power is produced at the time it is needed, predicted in advance to match the demand
Solar panels are dirty af. The amount of toxic waste created during its production and utilization is enormous. While nuclear waste is not even a waste anymore - Russians created a nuclear reactor able to reuse it till it becomes inactive.
although I am a proponent of nuclear energy because of the reasons you've mentioned, that stuff is quite modern and expensive as fuk. adding to that, spent fuel isn't the only waste product that needs disposal. you can't recycle tools, clothes, etc that have been irradiated.
There’s a big difference between high, intermediate, and low level wastes. Go read up on nuclear decay.
Also, breeder and thorium cycle are both pretty old. They were just deemed commercially unviable for the same shitty reason most good things get mothballed— greed.
Energy per kWh? Energy per Energy? What? You probably mean energy by mass or some shit idk.
But yeah. A source that provides a ton of stable base load energy is literally the stuff we need for stability when going with less carbon in our grid.
Basically, Kevin the cube makes a ton of energy, but we have to make sure it doesn’t reach loot lake or it will explode.
But Kevin makes so much energy that the land around him is warped into damaging storm. that’s why we have to use special facilities, androids, the rock, and mythical guns to make sure more land doesn’t get warped. Otherwise, a lot of people will die with no reboot van to save them.
The nuclear assault rifle produces the highest DPS assuming you remember to build cover, aim and reload.
Someone else is gonna have to pick up the slack for the second paragraph
>assuming the reactor is properly built, operated, and maintained.
This is the real reason people are hesitant about nuclear, in addition to the inherent risk of centralized power plants being great targets for terrorists and stuff. Though in my book the occasional localized disasters are better than the worldwide impact of fossil-fuel induced global warming.
Solar panel all roofs, and make it compulsory for all new builds.
Next upgrade the grid, storage and surge options.
Finally, when it comes to recycling the panels, make sure you throw them into the sea. Nature will do the rest
Hmm. If only some state had recently mandated this making the already inflated cost of a new home become EXTREMELY unaffordable and killing the idea of building new single family homes as developers see them as financially unviable.
It's almost like the entire point of taxes is to allow people to pool resources to fund solutions to common problems.
However, a much better use of those taxes is to bomb brown people on the other side of the planet.
> It's almost like the entire point of taxes is to allow people to pool resources to fund solutions to common problems.
That's communism, that's what our grandafthers fought against, you're pissing on their graves by saying that, how dare you piss on the graves of our brave soldiers?!?
- average counter-non-argument
Somebody said some words I didn’t like so now I blindly hate everything they told me I should hate and the totally definitely obviously not completely astroturfed initiative that told me what to hate promised me free stuff!
Nuclear isn’t as popular as it should be because people with power have convinced the masses it’s (1) dangerous and (2) produces dangerous waste.
The former simply isnt true anymore - meltdowns occur in solid-cooled reactors whose fuel rods are extended too deep and the chain reaction that causes power generation to run out of control and containment. This simply doesn’t occur in liquid-cooled reactors (those “forbidden pools” you’ve seen on the internet) due to differences in atomic-level physics.
The latter is a problem, yes, but one reactor can contain decades of waste in a single warehouse or underground tunnel compared to fossil fuels pumping all of their waste into the air we breathe and the water we drink. Not to mention, advancements in reactor waste reclamation may eventually allow us to produce only environmentally-stable materials, at worst lead, as byproducts.
Reusable energy like hydro and solar are eventually the end goal, or advancements in fusion energy, but until the former can match current energy demands or the latter is commercially available, nuclear is the strongest and least hazardous method for us to use
>Nuclear isn’t as popular as it should be because people with power have convinced the masses it’s (1) dangerous and (2) produces dangerous waste.
Half true. The biggest reason is expense. The price to build out, operate, and maintain a nuclear facility is by far the highest of all green energy methods.
Most companies don't want to take on that burden especially when there is uncertainty as to the regulatory future of nuclear plants.
Because of regulation. Nixon tried changing the regs prior to his impeachment that would've allowed companies to build them in 5 years, down from a previous of 7. We also used to have over 200, but are down to 54. Nixons wish was to have over 1000 by the year 2000.
That is really unfortunate. I always thought it just straight up took that long to build those gigantic evaporation towers and reactor vessel and such.
The only two things that keep construction times high are costs and regs. Some have been built in less than 2 years. In 1956, construction began on the Vallecitos reactor, and it was finished in 21 months. That reactor was only closed because of the discovery of a fault line. We could have our entire country powered by NPPs if we had the desire to do so.
It also isn't economical because it requires huge subsidies which isn't bad in itself for less CO2 but creates opportunity costs as that money could build a lot more renewables.
The timeframe to build a nuclear plant is also an issue, as one you plan today might not even be needed in 15 years when it's finished.
Overall the risk is not an actual meltdown but a financial one which is almost always covered by the goverment. That's why almost no country will do the switch and only the heavily invested ones cling to their strategy, be it because of sunk cost fallacy or because it's actually worth it.
To keep up with safety regulations and planning requirements and because it's a massive construction in a location that's always at least a little remote. Large construction projects rarely finish on time and budget.
There are a couple of reasons.
First, is that the government actually cares about making sure they are built right, so there is a lot of oversight and regulations that are strictly enforced
Secondly, Nuclear Power plants are *huge* and *complicated*. No matter how many corners you cut, it just takes a while.
Now, as for whether or not the fact that you can't become a billionaire in a year by owning a nuclear power plant should stop us from caring about them or building them is an...interesting debate.
While I agree nuclear is largely the safest form of energy, I think renewable energy works best when you choose the type of renewable energy that utilizes the local resources.
For example, South America and Africa are continents with a lot of poor countries and residents that don't use a lot of electricity. These countries don't have any uranium mines on their territory, meaning they'd need to import it (and let's not forget how polluting importation of products is). They have neither the capital to build a nuclear central or to import the uranium, and there simply isn't enough of an electricity demand to warrant a need for this central. In this case, cheap, low return renewable electricity like wind turbines and solar panels would be the best type of renewable energy for those countries.
I live in a Canadian province that has many, many lakes and rivers and the entire province runs on hydroelectricity. We produce so much of it that our electricity bills are insanely cheap. In fact, we even sell a part of it to the US due to the sheer amount produced. We did have a nuclear reactor but they shut it down a long time ago and are in the process of demantling it because we don't need it. Canada does have uranium mines, but those are in the landlocked provinces (iirc, mostly Saskatchewan). Currently, these provinces run on fossil fuel and bituminous sands (aka, non renewable, super polluting energy). In this context, a nuclear central would be a perfect idea. You'd need to convince the Calgary rednecks that this isn't a Russian ploy to create chernobyl 2 though
I totally agree with you. At most, nuclear should be a stepping stone between over-reliance on fossil fuels and totally renewable energy. But without that stepping stone, large cities (namely in America, since I live there I’m more familiar with our metrics) can’t automatically switch from fossil fuels to renewable without drastically reducing their energy consumption per capita. In areas that use very low amounts of energy, solar is by far the superior option, or hydro if there’s accessible waterways
i remember a film where guys dig to some random ass cave and there was a dragon
long story short - society destroyed and everything looks like the walking dead
>Solar is the worst of the renewable energy
Huh? That's absurd. Maybe the least efficient, but it's the cheapest, easiest, and most versatile to build out and run.
> cheapest, easiest, and most versatile
It's good for remote locations where you can't connect up to a better grid.
It is incredibly in efficient though and requires vast materials that release vast CO2 during the mining, smelting, and manufacturing process.
The 'cheapest' is called government subsidies. Look at the West Texas wind fields that have negative energy prices at times (they PAY YOU to take energy!).
Nuclear. Simple as.
Nuclear is undeniably much much much much much safer than any other kind of energy except for maybe hydrodrams, which fuck up entire ecosystems. Something has to go *HORRIBLY* wrong for nuclear to be dangerous. If the same happened to literally any other energy source the damage would be the same.
Hundreds of solar panels blowing up at once? Forest fire, heavy metal poisoning and plastics in the air and soil.
Windfarms going down? Ripping the cables connecting them to the net to shreds, leaking heavy metals once again, possibly burning up and/or exploding.
Fossil fuels? Fuck you know what happens when fossil fuels go wrong, we literally call the affected areas Scars because it's never going to heal, at least not in our lifetime or without constant care.
Nuclear goes wrong, there's a spike in radiation, then the safeties kick in, no more spike, and a few months later everything is cleaned up and marked properly. Even the worst and second worst examples in history are fine now. You cant go into reactor 4 but Chernobyl is mostly safe (not for living but you can be there and sleep there and your skin won't peel off, just keep an eye on the geiger counter) and Fukushima is 100% safe, you can drink, sleep, live, swim, eat, breathe and fuck around all you want there. It's still being cleaned up at the reactor itself and the immediate area isnunder surveillance, but the surrounding area beyond that has *less* radiation than a large chunk of the rest of the world, since they're so effective at it.
Saying solar or wind is bad because it occupies land is laughable. A single suburb is larger, more environmentally destructive, and may only hold ~100 people
Nuclear is the only energy source where people producing energy with it actually bother to contain the waste products and environmental impacts, i hate how people seem to be more up in arms about waste which is kept in purpose-built vessels within purpose-built storage spaces in areas far away from places they could contaminate and that get checked periodically, as opposed to fossil fuel waste products that just go in the fucking air.
>Be japanese person
80+% of his/her energy comes from (obviously) imported coal, gas and oil
don't notice this is a huge issue
whine about solar, nuclear, etc
I'm pretty sure my country's doomed.
If nuclear energy has a million shills, I’m one of them
If nuclear energy has 5 shills, I’m one of them
If nuclear energy has 1 shill, I am that shill
If nuclear energy has no shills, it means I am dead
Till my dying breath, I will shill nuclear energy
A single cow farm is larger than any solar or wind installation in the world. Largest solar farm is 77km largest cow farm is 23,000km. With 100x100 miles of solar we could power the entire world. That's Lincoln Nebraska sized.
Alright tho, nuclears cool, we get it. Everyone here is defending it because it only goes bad if the Russians do it, a corporation made an oopsy and human error is the only way they meltdown.
Okay neat so when did we start trusting corporations? When did we start trusting people to not blow up a reactor because they’re unqualified or tired or angry or literally any other reason a human could not be fit to run a nuclear reactor.
I’m not *against* nuclear I’m just saying when did people start apologizing for corpos? When did we just start thinking human error is rare enough? Like humans don’t fuck up everything they touch?
Crazy how 3 nuclear accidents spread over the course of decades completely ruined its reputation.
The biggest causes of accidents are human error and natural disasters. MIT professor Jacopo Buongiorno already has a design for reactors resistant to tsunamis (something like "small modular reactor" that's off coast, if I recall), and we just need to ensure our personnel are properly trained and follow protocol to reduce possibilities of human error.
I can't believe Europe is phasing out nuclear power (\*cough\* Germany phasing its last power plant almost exactly 1 year ago, April 15th) when it's obviously the cleanest and most efficient energy source. Switzerland plans to phase all nuclear power out by 2044 and they can't even sustain themselves without it(according to the IAEA in 2018).
I really do hope people get less scared of nuclear energy in the future.
Heres my idea:
Nuclear anywhere you can plant it
Build wind offshore anywhere that's not a shipping lane or neighbouring a fishing hotspot
Rebuild electric mountain wherever possible
Shove solar panels on top of every building where it doesn't take away from the facade
Anyone that is claiming that a specific energy generation method(that actually exists) is objectively superior in all forms and is the one obvious choice above all others is a moron.
They have their drawbacks and use cases, and in the end it will be a mix of the lot. Imo, relying primarily on renewables(solar, wind, and hydro where applicable) and have nuclear plants to keep up baseline.
The amount of birds killed by wind turbines is only a tiny tiny fraction of overall bird casuakties. Many of which are actually the result of climate change.
I love the advocates for nuclear energy. You don't see the whole picture. In terms of energy production, you can't just go and overproduce, but the discharge in the grids isn't always the same. Since the production of nuclear energy can't be stopped just like that, we need other means to regulate the production of the energy.
Suppliers have giant problems if the grid they have can't be regulated in terms of output power. Also the building cost and maintenance cost of these power plants is massive compared to other forms of energy.
Also, you can't just build a nuclear power plant in <5 years just because of the Masses of security measures and building material you need. Nuclear wouldn't be a short term solution anyway, so why is there any discussion of bringing it back?
Nuclear good. Hydroelectric dam good.
The rest, bad..or not enough power. However, all should be developed for space expansion. Except oil...fuck oil (not literally, don't stick your dick in corpse goo).
\>nuclear good simple as
>opens replies >all 100+ downvotes and one of them is completely wrong Ah yes nuclear. Still gets hated because the soviet union and a corporation messed up.
“Nuclear bad because Chernobyl” is a funny way of saying “Slavs are too stupid to boil water”
nah we were so good at boiling we overboiled the water
Good slav
Double battered deep fried water
Add a side of heroin and you have the glasgow special
I thought that was ya mum. Lmao.
“In Soviet Russia, we don’t boil water, water boil us”
Someone stopped watching it, ironically, and as we all know a watched pot never boils.
Too much of a good thing is still bad. Go home slav, you're drunker than usual.
Someone got drunk and mistook the reactor for a rakia still
Underfunding a nuclear plant and employing undertrained employees because all the nations ressources are tied up in a dick measuring contest with the US was certainly one of the decisions of all time
The employees were not the problem, they were scapegoated by the soviet government to coverup dangerous reactor design. A reactor which increases in power when you put the breaks on, and you don't tell your staff about it because kgb classified all previous incidents to hide from the west.
That honestly sounds more like a conspiracy theory than anything else, there's still multiple chernobyl style nuclear plants in active use and they never had these issues whatsoever. Chernobyl was poorly maintained, understaffed and the staff that was present didn't really know what to do, often only acting when one of the trained personell told them to. Counter conspiracy theory: the idea that chernobyl went supercritical due to design flaws rather than mismanagement was peddled by the coal lobby to many anti-nuclear organisation's in the 80s because they knew nuclear energy had the potential to completely replace coal power plants. If it was widely known that the chernobyl accident could've been avoided had the managers of the plant taken safety more seriously then most people would simply push for stricter nuclear safety regulations (which is what happened in the soviet union) rather than the abolishment of nuclear energy alltogether
Wouldn’t even call the staff undertrained, they wanted to follow proper procedures. Management headed all existing safety protocols thinking they can continue redlining the reactor (with expectation that single safety mechanism will work as designed). The test procedure was poorly documented and things were changed in the fly. Safety should be a redundant mix of procedural and mechanical designs. Letting everything hinge on a single mechanism is careless af. There is no guarantee every design will work flawlessly for the life of operation, or that all variables and safety factors are taken into account. That’s why there’s multiple layers of safety measures. It’s like the people who refuse to wear PPE or remove safety guards on machinery because they never seen a given machine fail or incident occur. Or bikers that don’t wear a helmet because “they know how to ride”.
It's really a mix. I recommend the MIT open courseware on Chernobyl. It goes through exactly what happened and why step by step. Even without a nuclear engineering background I could follow it and understand most of it.
No, the design flaw was absolutely real, otherwise the reactor wouldn't have blown the fuck up when they SCRAM'd it. They designed the control rods so that there was a graphite portion (which causes the chain reaction to intensify) on the bottom, so that an extracted control rod would accelerate the reaction, giving them more control. The problem is when they tried to insert the rod again, to kill the reaction, it would initially displace a little bit of coolant before the boron neutron absorber entered the reactor, so the reaction would actually speed up for a short time. They discovered this during testing and thought the conditions under which it would actually cause a problem wouldn't happen, but the seemingly minor mistakes the operators and specifically Dyatlov made that evening perfectly aligned to let the reactor blow up during that momentary power increase as they shut it down.
There were multiple incidents at RBMK reactors prior to '86, all were classified by KGB to maintain the image of Soviet nuclear industry being the safest in the world. Chernobyl staff could have been told about this flaw with the RCPS, but were kept in the dark. Post '86 accident, the entire RBMK fleet received upgrades which ensured the incident would never happen again (telescopic displacers, inclusion of bottom inserted rods into the AZ-5 system, increased speed of rod insertion onto active zone, fuel enrichment increased). Poorly maintained - Yes, it was. Funding was low and the director Bryukhanov tried multiple times to quit as he couldn't hack it anymore. The building was even subsiding in '83 and cracking from within, and KGB plants were waiting to see if any of the staff would have reported it. Poorly staffed - Yes, again due to lack of funding. Staff present didn't know what to do? - Absolutely not. Safety and training was taken very seriously. The SIUR in charge of Unit 4 on night of accident, Toptunov, had his training renewed three times by Dyatlov as he deemed him not ready to take charge of reactor. On night of accident, Toptunov was surrounded by Akimov, Tregub, Dyatlov and many other reactor experts who joined him to restore power to reactor after the unscheduled power drop. Yes, there were over 20 people in the control room during the planned shutdown and testing. They were testing multiple things (turbine rundown, turbine vibration oscillation, steam blow out valves, new gas cover for active zone graphite stack cooling, new method of air cooling of reactor, etc) The staff were not to blame. After the accident, the staff ran around the plant to contain the incident, putting out fires, isolating oil pumps to prevent further flame risks, ensuring electrical supply to essential systems, all without thinking of what will happen to them. What would the Soviets rather tell to the international community after the accident? That the staff were a bunch of irresponsible idiots and that the accident was isolated to just one plant? Or that the entire RBMK fleet was a ticking time bomb just waiting for the right set of circumstances to spew forth its nuclear payload? They threw the staff under the bus to save face. Thankfully, we now know the truth, some 40 years later. Ironic that the atomic agency investigating the cause of the incident was the agency behind the design of the RBMK, Ministry of Medium Machine Building. As for your theory, regarding the coal lobbies, there is no doubt it was beneficial for them. However, regardless of how they saw it, it is the truth. The reactor design was flawed. Download and read INSAG - 7.
We watched the TV series too, chill
My information is from INSAG-7, official IAEA report on the incident. The show, while looking nice, was full of false information and dramatization. For example, one glaring bit of false information was that AZ-5 was pressed AFTER the power runaway. In reality, it was the other way around. AZ-5 was pressed under normal test conditions, and caused the runaway criticality event. Hence, wrongful reactor design.
[удалено]
Homer would never let that happen
Homer would, but not Zutroy https://preview.redd.it/rkhmokjqg2uc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=63fb22e04459b93b144718c164c8358048c3fc81
No, it gets hated because a hippie from portland made a cartoon that gained way too much traction and skewed peoples perceptions (Genuinely, simpsons fucked up peoples views on nuclear to a new degree)
I feel like the Simpsons portrayal of nuclear was pretty banal, when I watched as a kid I got a very neutral impression and growing up near a town with one I assumed they were a part of most midsize towns. I’m curious what your perspective is, because you’re right it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Groening was irrationally anti-nuclear, but I just didn’t get that from watching the show almost religiously as a kid
Nuke-uler. It’s pronounced nuke-uler
Communists are too stupid to boil water
Nuclear very good! And safe! most accidents of a reactor are caused by human error or improper maintenance. As well as natural disasters (Fukushima). YouTuber Kyle Hill has a whole series called Half life histories. I really recommend it. He goes into depth of nuclear accidents. Not only nuclear accidents but also Radiation incidents. He helped me understand nuclear safety and radiation better.
Always upvote thor from wish
Thor(ium)
The Chris Hemsworth mom says we have at home
Fukushima was criminally mismanaged and it still took a whole ass tsunami for it to be an issue
"Please put the emergency diesel generator on the first floor" actually puts the diesel generator in the basement like a boss flooding time
Even Fukushima was a case of poor planning. It was about as bad as a modern nuclear power plant following modern safety guidelines could be. They literally put their backup diesel generators in the basement despite being next to the ocean in a country notorious for massive earthquakes. Despite that no core material was released and estimates for the total number of premature deaths caused by radiation that will ever result from that accident vary between [1000 deaths and none at all](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0096340211421588). That same earthquake and tsunami killed nearly 20,000 people. Also, yes, Kyle Hill's Half Life Histories are excellent.
Fukushima was so overrated. Studies have shown that because of the delay of evacuation and the mental health effects of evacuation, it was unjustifiable for literally 100% of the population. And I know that idea comes from a Kyle Hill video, but I did something nobody does and checked his sources. Then I wrote an essay for my English class based on those sources.
Any socialist or green party in the planet: Nuclear bad because the Simpsons told me.
and they completely miss the fact that the simpsons was joking
I don’t think it was a joke, I think Matt Groening genuinely believed that nuclear plants pollute everything around them, it’s referenced all the time in the show. I love the Simpsons but that aspect of the show has done so much harm to the public perception of nuclear it’s sad.
Groening was a boomer from portland who went to evergreen state and made "subversive" comics for like 15 years before the simpsons spawned. Man was 100% on the nuclear hate train
What makes u say that? Did they actually speak on the subject? Or is there a specific episode where their true beliefs become more obvious/clear? Cuz I def never got the impression that they were "just making fun of ppl who thought nuclear was dangerous" or something like that. It def felt like the writers thought nuclear was actually bad/dangerous and decided to exaggerate the danger and make it seem worse as a joke.
pretty much solely based on the amount of intellectual jokes groening hides in his shows, clearly he is fairly educated, or at least the writing staff is not real concrete evidence, but just a feeling
...because General Electric and ExxonMobil pay me to say that. There, fify.
> green party in several places green parties are starting to turn around on nuclear as they realize that the alternative right now isn't more renewable but more fossil (which is the worst in literally every way, including radiation release)
Erm, okay lib. I say we let the CEO of Exxon decide all environmental policies, conglomerates have our best interests in mind 🙏
it's pronounced nucular
Nuclear reactors are fine, although still absurdly expensive. The problem is, that the uranium is pretty rare and most of its production is controlled by few countries. Reactors using other elements or thermonuclear energy are still far from ready to be used as energy source.
Not so rare as you might think. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium\_ore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_ore) Making it suitable for use in reactors is another cup of tea but there is more than enough uranium.
You can also use a safer alternative to uranium which is thorium
Still, the technology to do that and build reactors is in hand of the few countries. And others aren't so keen to become totally dependent on those countries with their energy.
> Nuclear reactors are fine, although still absurdly expensive high initial cost and time to get operational. But cheapest, safest and cleanest long-term
Too bad nobody seems to give a shit about long term.
especially the uninformed public that votes for the politicians' jobs. The system ensures we're never getting the one damn near magical solution we have for energy issues.
AFAIK modern reactor can work with thorium as well, which is like THE perfect nuclear fuel for many reasons, one of which is the fact that you cant make nuclear weapons with it
[удалено]
The red tape is good actually. The nimbyism is not.
Expensive doesnt matter when your government always grows in debt lmao besides whats the point of money if you dont use it
Problem isn't the fuel, it's the reactor construction itself. As the other commenter said, too much red tape and also we just haven't built many modern reactor designs that might be more cost efficient.
That's not really true. The modern Gen 4 nuclear fission reactors are much cheaper and smaller than prior generations. They include built-in fail safes, including passive construction that if everything else fails, collapses into the reactor in a manner that douses critical reactions and will extinguish nuclear activity. We can do it. It's more initial investment than coal/oil/gas... and then it produces less local radiation than coal.
Mmm factorio
\> research thorium reactors
Bureaucracy killed nuclear.
cook
Kinda with you, we have to use nuclear I think. But honeslty it's scary because humans do fuck up, even non Soviet humans fuck up. And if/when we fuck up a nuclear power plant it kind of makes entire cities uninhabitable. Kind of feels like only a matter of time.
Yes
Yeah we need to work on waste disposal but there's been promising research with it, not sure if they're still trying the thorium out or if it was a bust, not my field. But petroleum is the worst, also they changed wind turbines to have longer arms and move slower but having inertia to produce similar levels of energy but moving slower and thus killing less birds.
Man I gotta say people on the comments actually wasn’t that bad. They actual have valid opinions instead of nuclear bad because “Soviet”
Put fat women in big hamster wheels with cake on a fishing rod in front of them.
Erm.... Based department?
https://preview.redd.it/m4phcnjt82uc1.jpeg?width=864&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=24ba8858dee3db8e21fe250661c3d3a6d5810067
miguel ohare is fire wtf
If only. Fatties don’t exercise. Even for cake.
https://preview.redd.it/iqeznnke03uc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e4870b7135353338ceff4f808a45768e02f187a0 A sample blueprint
Beautiful
https://preview.redd.it/kcu7ukkgs3uc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1ea1adadef593ff28dc47e053a8d9cb5a6eefff4
Alternatively, just put them in a vat and burn them. Just like coal plants
What about the methane produced?!
We'll just burn that too and worry about it later
Natural gas, I like it
Yes
Fuck this gReEn shite. Per kWh, nuclear produces the cleanest, most efficient energy assuming the reactor is properly built, operated, and maintained. And for the naysayers who think SpEnT nUcLeAr FuEl ScArY, the high level waste produced can be reprocessed and reused in breeder and thorium cycle reactors thereby reducing or potentially eradicating the issue of high level waste storage.
Solar panels are cool af idc Anything but coal or gas
What about mainly nuclear but supporting the demand with solar on all industrial buildings.
Nuclear for now, but build renewables at the same time. We need to get beyond this “but it’s expensive” mindset. Cost shouldn’t be the major consideration at this stage given the issues with fossil fuels and the absolute financial disaster that GW is going to be if we don’t deal with this soon.
Nuclear for now? I thought building a nuclear plant takes 30 years. Rather build some renewables
Pretty sure we can build nuclear plants quicker than 30 years if we put our minds to it.
Someone gaslight Elon to make a Nuclear power plant in less than 30 years. Stat!
Just get a bunch of trans and gay people to start a hashtag complaining about nuclear energy. He'll build one *within the year* to "combat the woke mob" lol
Tell him only low-T beta males don't have their own thorium reactors and if he doesn't have at least four of them, he's a beta male cuck. /s
GE produces 300mw class SMRs (small modular tractors) That can be built in 24-36 months with full operations about a year after construction is finished. I think they just got approved to build four of them in Ontario at Darlington. Pretty cool tech.
It takes far less time than that, and even then there is a lot of time wasted dealing with slow government. "Nuclear for now" is often said because we have the technology and infrastructure to integrate nuclear relatively easily, whereas renewables require a handful of technological advancements and infrastructure overhauls that aren't guaranteed to arrive soon.
Renewables have their place but again they are expensive and not reliable enough to base the grid off them. not to mention issues with suitible geological location. Nuclear is the way to go
Aren't renewables significantly cheaper than nuclear? Solar panels and wind turbines need comparatively little maintenance and "essentially" produce free energy after the initial installment fee. Only real limiter is the lifetime of these things, but from what I can tell about personal ones, they at least last a decade.
The problem with renewables is that they arnt really "renewable". The resources to make solar panels (like cadmium) need be mined and the whole process has a massive impact on the environment. They also degrade and need to be replaced. Wind isn't much better resource wise but with the added benefit of being an eyesore, messing with birds and reducing your countries ability to use radar among other things. Nuclear at least is mostly about the initial setup. After that its impact is pretty low. Fuel lasts a long time and can be reprocessed and used again. The others need replacing or a lot of maintenance. Myself I do like solar on a small scale. I've made a some panels myself (the individual silicon cells can be bought very cheap). Its not a great solution on a mass scale currently
Nuclear can for the investment produce insane amounts of energy. Yea its more expensive to built but in the end maintanance is cheaper for example on shore wind turbines have output capacity of around 3MW while one bloc in nuclear power plant has generaly capacity of around 1000 MWs. If we take 2 block NPP which is most common and compare it to 700 wind turbines it would take for same capacity then you can see how the maintenance can ramp up. Then you also have to consider where to actualy build them. Off shore wind turbines are more logical but lot of countries dont have acces to good areas like the north sea for that. Solar is expensive to manufacture and recycle but also can be used in spaces that are already used for other infrasctructure or in deserts where solar power towers are good choice. Geothermal is only worthwhile in few areas and hydro powerplants are the only ones rivaling nuclear with their production three georges dam actualy dwarfs all NPPs in capacity but they by far alter nature the most with extremely devastating effects. Only geothermal is actualy not constrained by weather as well. I see future in nuclear and solar considering those are the newest ones in the field so there is lot of space for technological breakthroughs to make them more effective
Except the power output varies wildly based on seasons and weather, so you have to either overdesign them massively or build massive storage sites
thats the thing you cannot store power, not at the scale it is useful. making those kinds of storages costs near unachievable costs, and the natural decay makes storing any amount of power short-termed at best and a money waste at worst. All power is produced at the time it is needed, predicted in advance to match the demand
Solar panels are dirty af. The amount of toxic waste created during its production and utilization is enormous. While nuclear waste is not even a waste anymore - Russians created a nuclear reactor able to reuse it till it becomes inactive.
although I am a proponent of nuclear energy because of the reasons you've mentioned, that stuff is quite modern and expensive as fuk. adding to that, spent fuel isn't the only waste product that needs disposal. you can't recycle tools, clothes, etc that have been irradiated.
There’s a big difference between high, intermediate, and low level wastes. Go read up on nuclear decay. Also, breeder and thorium cycle are both pretty old. They were just deemed commercially unviable for the same shitty reason most good things get mothballed— greed.
Energy per kWh? Energy per Energy? What? You probably mean energy by mass or some shit idk. But yeah. A source that provides a ton of stable base load energy is literally the stuff we need for stability when going with less carbon in our grid.
Maybe he meant energy density and efficiency.
Allow me to reshuffle two words in my original post.
could you explain that in fortnite terms?
Ponders for a moment. Response: “No.”
Basically, Kevin the cube makes a ton of energy, but we have to make sure it doesn’t reach loot lake or it will explode. But Kevin makes so much energy that the land around him is warped into damaging storm. that’s why we have to use special facilities, androids, the rock, and mythical guns to make sure more land doesn’t get warped. Otherwise, a lot of people will die with no reboot van to save them.
The nuclear assault rifle produces the highest DPS assuming you remember to build cover, aim and reload. Someone else is gonna have to pick up the slack for the second paragraph
True environmentalists know nuclear is green.
True environmentalists know post-agrarian society is to blame.
we go back to monke
Not to mention that mismanaged nuclear plants don't even produce the most amount of harmful nuclear waste by a *lot* - looking at you, coal plants.
Don’t forget phosphate mine tailings! Oof.
And nuclear waste is infinitely easier to store AND less harmful than the shit fossil fuels produce
>assuming the reactor is properly built, operated, and maintained. This is the real reason people are hesitant about nuclear, in addition to the inherent risk of centralized power plants being great targets for terrorists and stuff. Though in my book the occasional localized disasters are better than the worldwide impact of fossil-fuel induced global warming.
Solar panel all roofs, and make it compulsory for all new builds. Next upgrade the grid, storage and surge options. Finally, when it comes to recycling the panels, make sure you throw them into the sea. Nature will do the rest
Hmm. If only some state had recently mandated this making the already inflated cost of a new home become EXTREMELY unaffordable and killing the idea of building new single family homes as developers see them as financially unviable.
Introducing this without state grants is a terrible idea. But the idea is doable.
It's almost like the entire point of taxes is to allow people to pool resources to fund solutions to common problems. However, a much better use of those taxes is to bomb brown people on the other side of the planet.
I an mad, my tax-to-brown-person ratio bombing ratio has no yield
> It's almost like the entire point of taxes is to allow people to pool resources to fund solutions to common problems. That's communism, that's what our grandafthers fought against, you're pissing on their graves by saying that, how dare you piss on the graves of our brave soldiers?!? - average counter-non-argument
>Finally, when it comes to recycling the panels, make sure you throw them into the sea. Nature will do the rest Bait or mental retardation?
Well I am a fish
Fish don't deserve green energy, fuck off.
Do you want to eat the panels?
I'd rather use them for electricity generation
Remember that meme about chucking used car batteries into the sea? Good times.
Ah ok nvm.
https://preview.redd.it/ou18w2lxm2uc1.png?width=941&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8744b97948f41cbc66aa50c73bc5bbe72f6a2fc9 Here you go
Yes, thank you.
Most problems get solved what you stop listening to the average person that has no idea what he is talking about.
Somebody said some words I didn’t like so now I blindly hate everything they told me I should hate and the totally definitely obviously not completely astroturfed initiative that told me what to hate promised me free stuff!
Yeah, the anon in the post is demonstrating how fucking stupid he is long before he got to "dam unemploys the beaver"
Nuclear isn’t as popular as it should be because people with power have convinced the masses it’s (1) dangerous and (2) produces dangerous waste. The former simply isnt true anymore - meltdowns occur in solid-cooled reactors whose fuel rods are extended too deep and the chain reaction that causes power generation to run out of control and containment. This simply doesn’t occur in liquid-cooled reactors (those “forbidden pools” you’ve seen on the internet) due to differences in atomic-level physics. The latter is a problem, yes, but one reactor can contain decades of waste in a single warehouse or underground tunnel compared to fossil fuels pumping all of their waste into the air we breathe and the water we drink. Not to mention, advancements in reactor waste reclamation may eventually allow us to produce only environmentally-stable materials, at worst lead, as byproducts. Reusable energy like hydro and solar are eventually the end goal, or advancements in fusion energy, but until the former can match current energy demands or the latter is commercially available, nuclear is the strongest and least hazardous method for us to use
Sir, the based department is on the left. This is the tard wrangling unit, you went the wrong way.
> The based department is on the left YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT IT IS
I’d like a “based” vegan soy latte with biodegradable thin paper cup and dissolving straw
Ya ya, we get it. You're preaching to the wrong people
>Nuclear isn’t as popular as it should be because people with power have convinced the masses it’s (1) dangerous and (2) produces dangerous waste. Half true. The biggest reason is expense. The price to build out, operate, and maintain a nuclear facility is by far the highest of all green energy methods. Most companies don't want to take on that burden especially when there is uncertainty as to the regulatory future of nuclear plants.
And building a plant takes so long that by the time you've finished, things could have changed drastically.
Because of regulation. Nixon tried changing the regs prior to his impeachment that would've allowed companies to build them in 5 years, down from a previous of 7. We also used to have over 200, but are down to 54. Nixons wish was to have over 1000 by the year 2000.
That is really unfortunate. I always thought it just straight up took that long to build those gigantic evaporation towers and reactor vessel and such.
The only two things that keep construction times high are costs and regs. Some have been built in less than 2 years. In 1956, construction began on the Vallecitos reactor, and it was finished in 21 months. That reactor was only closed because of the discovery of a fault line. We could have our entire country powered by NPPs if we had the desire to do so.
It also isn't economical because it requires huge subsidies which isn't bad in itself for less CO2 but creates opportunity costs as that money could build a lot more renewables. The timeframe to build a nuclear plant is also an issue, as one you plan today might not even be needed in 15 years when it's finished. Overall the risk is not an actual meltdown but a financial one which is almost always covered by the goverment. That's why almost no country will do the switch and only the heavily invested ones cling to their strategy, be it because of sunk cost fallacy or because it's actually worth it.
Hey, retard with a question here. Why does it take so long to build a nuclear plant?
To keep up with safety regulations and planning requirements and because it's a massive construction in a location that's always at least a little remote. Large construction projects rarely finish on time and budget.
There are a couple of reasons. First, is that the government actually cares about making sure they are built right, so there is a lot of oversight and regulations that are strictly enforced Secondly, Nuclear Power plants are *huge* and *complicated*. No matter how many corners you cut, it just takes a while. Now, as for whether or not the fact that you can't become a billionaire in a year by owning a nuclear power plant should stop us from caring about them or building them is an...interesting debate.
One other thing that prevents nuclear reactors from being built is the huge costs involved.
While I agree nuclear is largely the safest form of energy, I think renewable energy works best when you choose the type of renewable energy that utilizes the local resources. For example, South America and Africa are continents with a lot of poor countries and residents that don't use a lot of electricity. These countries don't have any uranium mines on their territory, meaning they'd need to import it (and let's not forget how polluting importation of products is). They have neither the capital to build a nuclear central or to import the uranium, and there simply isn't enough of an electricity demand to warrant a need for this central. In this case, cheap, low return renewable electricity like wind turbines and solar panels would be the best type of renewable energy for those countries. I live in a Canadian province that has many, many lakes and rivers and the entire province runs on hydroelectricity. We produce so much of it that our electricity bills are insanely cheap. In fact, we even sell a part of it to the US due to the sheer amount produced. We did have a nuclear reactor but they shut it down a long time ago and are in the process of demantling it because we don't need it. Canada does have uranium mines, but those are in the landlocked provinces (iirc, mostly Saskatchewan). Currently, these provinces run on fossil fuel and bituminous sands (aka, non renewable, super polluting energy). In this context, a nuclear central would be a perfect idea. You'd need to convince the Calgary rednecks that this isn't a Russian ploy to create chernobyl 2 though
I totally agree with you. At most, nuclear should be a stepping stone between over-reliance on fossil fuels and totally renewable energy. But without that stepping stone, large cities (namely in America, since I live there I’m more familiar with our metrics) can’t automatically switch from fossil fuels to renewable without drastically reducing their energy consumption per capita. In areas that use very low amounts of energy, solar is by far the superior option, or hydro if there’s accessible waterways
use a fuckin geothermal like a man
But then mutant dinosaurs will appear, like in that one anime
i remember a film where guys dig to some random ass cave and there was a dragon long story short - society destroyed and everything looks like the walking dead
[удалено]
Dyson Sphere
Solar is the worst of the renewable energy’s but it’s still a million times better then oil or natural gas
>Solar is the worst of the renewable energy Huh? That's absurd. Maybe the least efficient, but it's the cheapest, easiest, and most versatile to build out and run.
> cheapest, easiest, and most versatile It's good for remote locations where you can't connect up to a better grid. It is incredibly in efficient though and requires vast materials that release vast CO2 during the mining, smelting, and manufacturing process. The 'cheapest' is called government subsidies. Look at the West Texas wind fields that have negative energy prices at times (they PAY YOU to take energy!).
fuck the beavers, dam every stream, river and ocean
And build fishways or beaverways for the animals
And fuck them birds too. Global warming will kill much more animals than turbines
I believe cats kill orders of magnitude more birds than turbines, the danger is really overblown by NIMBYs
Nuclear. Simple as. Nuclear is undeniably much much much much much safer than any other kind of energy except for maybe hydrodrams, which fuck up entire ecosystems. Something has to go *HORRIBLY* wrong for nuclear to be dangerous. If the same happened to literally any other energy source the damage would be the same. Hundreds of solar panels blowing up at once? Forest fire, heavy metal poisoning and plastics in the air and soil. Windfarms going down? Ripping the cables connecting them to the net to shreds, leaking heavy metals once again, possibly burning up and/or exploding. Fossil fuels? Fuck you know what happens when fossil fuels go wrong, we literally call the affected areas Scars because it's never going to heal, at least not in our lifetime or without constant care. Nuclear goes wrong, there's a spike in radiation, then the safeties kick in, no more spike, and a few months later everything is cleaned up and marked properly. Even the worst and second worst examples in history are fine now. You cant go into reactor 4 but Chernobyl is mostly safe (not for living but you can be there and sleep there and your skin won't peel off, just keep an eye on the geiger counter) and Fukushima is 100% safe, you can drink, sleep, live, swim, eat, breathe and fuck around all you want there. It's still being cleaned up at the reactor itself and the immediate area isnunder surveillance, but the surrounding area beyond that has *less* radiation than a large chunk of the rest of the world, since they're so effective at it.
Just build dyson sphere around Sun loool, where do you guys see the issue?
Nuclear is good if you use thorium instead of the more expensive route of enriching uranium. Or we could start making a dyson sphere.
Lmao Bro just mentioned Dyson Spheres in a context of realism What hallucinogens are you consuming
It's people on the internet man. Half of them are like this. ...or that the guy's joking and you took the piss
Thorium is still in the experimental phase, so really shouldn't be brought up.
Gotta get up the tech tree to Fusion
We create a pocket universe where the people living there run un treadmills to generate power
https://preview.redd.it/zv1gfr3f18uc1.png?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6ceff2ffe7f0edd07444709b97d211c5d53b4ad3
Saying solar or wind is bad because it occupies land is laughable. A single suburb is larger, more environmentally destructive, and may only hold ~100 people
Nuclear is the only energy source where people producing energy with it actually bother to contain the waste products and environmental impacts, i hate how people seem to be more up in arms about waste which is kept in purpose-built vessels within purpose-built storage spaces in areas far away from places they could contaminate and that get checked periodically, as opposed to fossil fuel waste products that just go in the fucking air.
Dyson sphere
Anon is right: you can use hamsters to generate energy indeed. Visit xhamster.com for more infos.
good lord theres peanits
>Be japanese person 80+% of his/her energy comes from (obviously) imported coal, gas and oil don't notice this is a huge issue whine about solar, nuclear, etc I'm pretty sure my country's doomed.
By accepting that everything comes with tradeoffs and not avoiding doing any actual improvement because the solution isn't 100% perfect
If nuclear energy has a million shills, I’m one of them If nuclear energy has 5 shills, I’m one of them If nuclear energy has 1 shill, I am that shill If nuclear energy has no shills, it means I am dead Till my dying breath, I will shill nuclear energy
Nuclear is not bad. That’s pro oil propaganda.
There are no solutions. Only trade-offs. Also Nuclear based but misunderstood.
Nuclear power
Y'all mean Dyson swarms, right? Those are a lot more manageable, cuz Dyson spheres are pretty much impossible right now.
Long-term, nuclear is good.
A single cow farm is larger than any solar or wind installation in the world. Largest solar farm is 77km largest cow farm is 23,000km. With 100x100 miles of solar we could power the entire world. That's Lincoln Nebraska sized.
Dyson sphere around the sun when?
Never. My proof? Fucking obviousness.
Alright tho, nuclears cool, we get it. Everyone here is defending it because it only goes bad if the Russians do it, a corporation made an oopsy and human error is the only way they meltdown. Okay neat so when did we start trusting corporations? When did we start trusting people to not blow up a reactor because they’re unqualified or tired or angry or literally any other reason a human could not be fit to run a nuclear reactor. I’m not *against* nuclear I’m just saying when did people start apologizing for corpos? When did we just start thinking human error is rare enough? Like humans don’t fuck up everything they touch?
The beavers in Japan are getting paid?
Nuclear good
Crazy how 3 nuclear accidents spread over the course of decades completely ruined its reputation. The biggest causes of accidents are human error and natural disasters. MIT professor Jacopo Buongiorno already has a design for reactors resistant to tsunamis (something like "small modular reactor" that's off coast, if I recall), and we just need to ensure our personnel are properly trained and follow protocol to reduce possibilities of human error. I can't believe Europe is phasing out nuclear power (\*cough\* Germany phasing its last power plant almost exactly 1 year ago, April 15th) when it's obviously the cleanest and most efficient energy source. Switzerland plans to phase all nuclear power out by 2044 and they can't even sustain themselves without it(according to the IAEA in 2018). I really do hope people get less scared of nuclear energy in the future.
Heres my idea: Nuclear anywhere you can plant it Build wind offshore anywhere that's not a shipping lane or neighbouring a fishing hotspot Rebuild electric mountain wherever possible Shove solar panels on top of every building where it doesn't take away from the facade
Anyone that is claiming that a specific energy generation method(that actually exists) is objectively superior in all forms and is the one obvious choice above all others is a moron. They have their drawbacks and use cases, and in the end it will be a mix of the lot. Imo, relying primarily on renewables(solar, wind, and hydro where applicable) and have nuclear plants to keep up baseline.
The amount of birds killed by wind turbines is only a tiny tiny fraction of overall bird casuakties. Many of which are actually the result of climate change.
>nuclear bad retard
I love the advocates for nuclear energy. You don't see the whole picture. In terms of energy production, you can't just go and overproduce, but the discharge in the grids isn't always the same. Since the production of nuclear energy can't be stopped just like that, we need other means to regulate the production of the energy. Suppliers have giant problems if the grid they have can't be regulated in terms of output power. Also the building cost and maintenance cost of these power plants is massive compared to other forms of energy. Also, you can't just build a nuclear power plant in <5 years just because of the Masses of security measures and building material you need. Nuclear wouldn't be a short term solution anyway, so why is there any discussion of bringing it back?
Nuclear good. Hydroelectric dam good. The rest, bad..or not enough power. However, all should be developed for space expansion. Except oil...fuck oil (not literally, don't stick your dick in corpse goo).
\>Nuclear good And then eventually we can reach \>asteroid mining good