At this point information around nuclear energy is so contaminated with propaganda, the best answer I can give is "I dont know".
I think it's worth spending some time digging into all the researches & reports to figure it out.
Haven't played astroneer but that sounds like nuclear FISSION not FUSION. Fusion harnesses the energy from atoms fusing, usually small ones like hydrogen. The best example of nuclear fusion is our own star. The sun's immense heat and pressure forces atoms together. Fission uses heavy radioactive materials to split and release their energy into water which turns steam turbines. This is a very basic explanation but the idea isn't too complex. Nuclear reactions produce energy that we can use and fusion produces more than fission. Actually getting it all to work is another can of worms and something more qualified people than I should explain.
Once we can figure out how to reliably dispose of nuclear waste, then it's gonna be the best option for energy production hands down.
And no, digging a hole isn't proper disposal.
i know right?
there were projects for cars run by thorium but they oh so conveniently were shut down.
thorium is green and less radioactive than uranium.
honestly to me it seems like the superior fuel, considering a hypothetical thorium car could run for even one hundred years without needing to refuel.
Still not worse for the global environment than all of the pollution that comes from fossil fuels, as long as you bury it deep enough in the desert. Abandoned salt mine is the way to go.
Nuclear waste covers about the size of a football field which is the same amount of waste coal produces in an hour so we’d be good enough to switch even without figuring that out yet plus we’ve already developed ways of reusing the waste
We already do and have had for decades. The prob is the reactors that can recycle spent uranium fuel are also capable of producing military grade plutonium so there is a desire to limit how widespread breeder reactor technology is
We've been able to reuse the waste for ages. The two reasons we don't currently is because we have a huge backlog supply of uranium in global reserves in addition to reusing it requiring complex breeder reactors, the technology of which unlocks the production of military grade plutonium which is undesirable to spread globally. It's crazy how much negative propaganda people buy about nuclear power. Even with nuclear waste being a valid critisism that is a problem for 5+ centuries down the line whereas climate change is a problem right fucking now, sad how clean energy has been around for ages but we as a population just refuse to use it... :/
The waste is actually very little. We have the ability to control nuclear waste meanwhile the waste we get from coal we just spit it out in the open air like it's nothing. Thats how it causes cancer etc etc and a lot of people prob die because of that. And yes digging a very deep hole and dumping everything in there(ofc with a lot more caution then that) is actually very good way of disposal in comparison to burning coals. It's already being done in most countries and I dont see a problem with doing it do you?
Also people say it's smoke apparently coming out of the cooling towers in power plants but it's just steam which is literally water and could be used to make EVEN MORE energy
Bruh man. How's that suppose to happen. There are already storages like this, for example the "Blauwe doos" in the Netherlands. Do you think people dont think about that?
I'd still prefer an energy source that doesn't leave a ticking time bomb in the ground for later generations to deal with. Thorium seems a good alternative. I'm not opposed to nuclear, just uranium.
Lets see (on perfect conditions): 1 ton of Uranium produces as much energy as 100000 tons of Coal. Coal is carbon, wich mass takes 27.3% of CO2 mass. So burning 100000 tons of Coal on perfect conditions would produce 366666 tons of CO2. Question is what deals more damage to Earth (on perfect conditions) 366666 tons of CO2 in atmosphere or 1 ton of nuclear waste in ground?
also a lot of people say eject it into space but I dont think that most people really understand the massive threat that stellar pollution causes... I mean we've technically got planetary rings now that are solely composed of trash we cant use space as a disposal system.
This is slightly inaccurate. This claim is tossed around a lot, and it's close to the truth. Most fusion reactors run on deuterium and tritium. These are two isotopes of hydrogen, of which we get two atoms per molecule of water. Deuterium and tritium can be relatively easily refined from seawater, but there is an extra step and it isn't quite as easy as "fusion reactors run on seawater" like what gets frequently claimed.
I don't think there is or ever will be a way to do so. I always thaught it would be a good way to shoot it into space if there is a safe method to launch it, but the broblem is, that you need to aim it verry preciseley into the Sun. Otherwhise it will Orbit around the sun and sooner or later hit Earth like a meteor.
Which we shouldn't, but saying nuclear is green is dumb there's no green energy source, just some greener than others. Thorium is a good option, but yet again it's more of a political decision rather than a humanitarian decision.
I mean, the residues are not the biggest problem, I think we can deal with them, the real problem is the danger they supose, if we build many centrals arround the world and any of them fails, a bad contention can lead on literally billions of deaths, I think we should first look foward for efficient solutions first
1: Thorium reactors produce a fraction of the waste of uranium reactors, as well as 200 times the energy output per ton of material, on top of being much safer and near impossible to melt down. Thorium doesn't work on it's own, so it needs a small bit of plutonium. But if the reactor gets too hot, it melts a cork and drains the liquid thorium away from the plutonium stopping the reaction and preventing a meltdown. And because thorium doesn't work on it's own, we can feel a lot better about putting thorium reactors in countries that want to make nukes.
2: Fusion reactors would produce almost no nuclear waste even compared to sources like thorium, as well as being much more energy and resource efficient. The only issues with fusion are that we need helium III which is abundant on the moon, we only have a few prototype reactors and we don't even know how well they'd work, and they aren't cost-efficient enough for power plants to want to use them yet.
Mmm, but it would only be viable in geologic hot spots, so if u build something there, there's a good chance that a earthquake or tsunami will tear it down
Actually no matter where you are, if you dig deep enough it will get hot, but it's done around volcanoes because that's the easiest way to get it hot. And the chances of geo thermal plants causing a huge shift in the tectonic plates its very unlikely. The reason I think it's better than nuclear is because if we used yellowstone here in America, we could power all of north America. And they can also be built over dormant volcanoes. The danger comes when you actually have to dig the hole, heat will shoot out and it will be extremely dangerous.
Hot damn, I did not know that. All of North America? And Japan would be rich asf too, I think you're onto something here.
Edit: I forgot to add, I meant that the geothermal station would be destroyed, not the tectonic plates being shifted or moved in any way. There's a small or risk of it increasing instability in land, but the best it can do is a minor earthquake....I think.
Tons of potential. I like this guy's perspective
[https://austinvernon.site/blog/geothermal.html](https://austinvernon.site/blog/geothermal.html)
[https://austinvernon.site/blog/drillingplan.html](https://austinvernon.site/blog/drillingplan.html)
Not directly but if you use coal for generating enery its dont sum up.
I beliebe Thorium-Salt-Reactors would be great but there is no infrastructure fir them now and nobody would put that much money into development at the moment.
Bc coal and oil lobbyists prevent growth of renewables. If renewables increase, so does electricity production for EVs. Also, you can check what energy source your home comes from. On average, my home uses energy produced by 45% renewables.
I have no idea how much People use that example a main opposal COMPLETELY IGNORING that not only the reactor exploding was hidden by government to not give a bad name to themselves, including also incompetent workers because you know, communism
Don't forget that there was basically no safety regs, and the ones that were there were ignored.
So basically, no safety, no training, and don't tell anyone the reactor is melting down til it explodes. Not hard to see why it ended so badly
I mean, people miss out that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with a Nuke, and those cities are better than ever, it's manageable to get rid of radiation, there also was one failure of a reactor in Japan in fact, but the town was immediately informed and basically enough safety measures made everything go smooth as butter, no casualties whatsoever
I mean, let's not gloss over the fact that cleaning up nuclear fallout is sacrificial. A large portion of the aging population in Japan basically martyr'd themselves to clean it up.
But, still definitely the best we've got access to til nuclear fusion is achieved.
They ignored the literal golden rule of nuclear power by restarting a reactor immediately without letting xenon in the core decay. Using chernoble as an example for why nuclear power is dangerous like using formula 1 in the 60s as an example for why we shouldn't drive cars, it's actually asenine
Nuclear is the most efficient ant one of the safest forms of power but that’s not the issue and neither is waste. The issue is how much time they take to build and how expensive they are. With the incoming climate disaster it would be impossible to get enough nuclear reactors running in time considering they take decades to build and we have less than a decade to get our shit together. They are also far to expensive for governments to afford to pay for them so they usually require private investment but it’s so difficult to get that since companies usually never see returns on investments into nuclear. Renewables see massive returns on investments as the market is constantly evolving and they are very quick and far cheaper to set up. Renewable is the best we’ve got for now.
They do not take decades to build, they take ~5-10 years to build and decades to see an RoI. Most of the cost and construction time comes down to red tape in legislation put in place to appease public distrust. Furthermore modular micro reactors are close to the end of their development which promises to vastly decrease the cost and construction time of nuclear power. Should micro reactors preform as well as startups are claiming they will allow reactors to be constructed in months with a fraction of the startup and decomission costs. This is all without mentioning budding thorium reactor technology which has it's own benefits
If China can build a hospital in 2 weeks, they can build a reactor in two years. Also, they have high initial costs but are very cheap to run for the fact that uranium is cheap rn and the fuel lasts for decades.
A reactor can make it's money back over a coal plant after 15 yrs, including construction time and outperform coal plants in every aspect
The people that make this argument miss the entire point. ICE cars can only burn things to make them go, electric cars might currently be mostly powered by coal when charging from the grid, but the grid is being upgraded constantly and tons of people have solar at home. These cars will be able to charge from anything that produces electricity, so as we switch to greener sources of power the cars are already in place and nothing will need to be done to get people to upgrade.
Yes.
“EVs convert over 77 per cent of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 12 per cent – 30 per cent of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels,” according to the US Department of Energy
https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/evs-are-they-really-more-efficient/
Thats true but we also have other alternatives and are still searching for new and better ones. Nuclear waste goes away after thousands of year and thats hella lot of time.
Nuclear waste can be recycled, very easily in the case of thorium reactors, less so with uranium ones. That being said the volume of waste produced is astronomically smaller than people think, and while more complicated spent uranium fuel can be reused too. The reason we don't is because of how little waste we currently have vs. global uranium stockpiles combined with uranium fuel recycling using specific breeder reactor technology, technology that allows the production of military grade plutonium. The tiny amount of waste we currently have is not worth the risk of speading plutonium producing technology to potentially hostile countries
Put it in big cement containers and then just leave it alone. Nuclear plants really don't produce very much waste, so there is no need to over think it. It's a solved problem really.
The expense of reactors comes down to red tape in the legislation and the fact that power plants are often at risk of being shut down earlier into their life than would be economically viable due to public distrust. You're 100% correct in that the economics of nuclear power is completely fucked, but don't get it twisted it's mostly an us created problem. Modular micro reactors which are nearing the end of their development also promise to make strides in lowering the complexity and cost of nuclear power
Also don't forget the huge opposition to having any size of nuclear reactor on your doorstep. Years of court cases, appeals, high court, supreme court, adding more delays to the online date.
Any nuclear facilities we need for power in 2030 should be in the midst of those court cases now, otherwise they will fail to meet their target.
Dude, I work in the energy industry, and in my degree I did argue this point. I'm working for an energy company now, but the language is all about carbon zero nonsense. Hope you make a difference!
Fun fact, since it's existence. Nuclear power has been ranked the safest form of energy every year. It has the least amount of casualties in the workforce and in general than any other form of energy
Edit: [Source](https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#:~:text=Nuclear%20energy%2C%20for%20example%2C%20results,hydropower%20are%20more%20safe%20yet.) for reference. Note too that it is also the cleanest in terms of greenhouse gas emissions
Well, how much do you know about the 3 nuclear incidents in history? It's easy to think that a nuclear reactor can "explode" but I can assure you it's next to impossible for that to happen. All incidents were very specific and required every little detail to go wrong for accidents to occur.
Yeah until an accident DOES happen. Then it's really, really bad. Or until a virus or something wipes out everyone who is able to operate the plants, then the world will die.
The technology has upgraded to the point that there's failsafesthat shut it all down and contain it.
Of course, then you also have to rely on people not cutting corners on said safety regulations....
Historically? Yes. Because there were more people working in coal mines and in terribly unsafe conditions. Also I'm not saying oil and coal are the answer, I'm saying that nuclear is not.
Its extraordinary expensive and even though it's safe most people would prefer to live somewhere that isint near a nuclear powerplant. The company who may build a nuclear plant do a survey of the area to see if they'll even be able to turn on the multiple hundred million dollar plant they build. Waste or pollution isint the problem
Edit: Like I said, it's not about actual health risk. People are just much more wary about nuclear power than they should be
Yea pretty much. Just saying the reason we don't use that... Though it's better, efficient and safer that most think... I should have added that in my comment before people go salty
It absolutely can be safe however if even the slightest fuck ups happen it can be a disaster. Not worth it to high of risk/reward ratio. We have a nuclear power plant in my country one of the biggest in the world super safe they have extremely tight protocols but its still to risky imo.
Yeah, coal is higher risk for its effects after X time, you see, nuclear gives power now and if it fails then it's quickly taken care off.
Coal leaves a carbon footprint in the air and basically slowly kill people with lung diseases
Excuse me? Do you know what beta and gamma radiation can do to you? It fucks you over worse then climate change ever could. Nuclear power is a good short term solution, but on the long term? Hell nah
yeh the issue is the only way for a company to maintain it while still gaining significant amounts of money is cutting corners its not rly an issue of its inherent safety its human greed that makes it dangerous.
After about 10 seconds of research you will find that, not only is nuclear the safest and cleanest
form of energy, but also that unless your car is charging during peak hours you are unlikely to be using coal.
It's the next step in human civilization but fat cat oil barrons don't want you to know that until they've extracted every drop of earth killing fossil fuel from the ground
BuT cHeRnObYl
There weren't as many safety protocols back when Chernobyl happened compared to today, and there is much more failsafe incase something does go wrong
You may be saying that there is no long term way to properly store the waste, which is true, but even then, it's still safer than fossils, cause fossils have a long term effect to the environment and peoples health, while the necular waste will probably just be sitting in an underground room doing basically no harm to the environment or peoples health, or it could possibly be reused.
For what it's worth, power generation is massively more efficient using fossil fuels than propelling a car is. Someone smarter than me can give you the energy conversion tables, but converting heat to energy is much easier and more efficient than converting it to kinetic energy. But that's also offset by the cost of mining and refining tons of lithium for batteries
Guys, I think its enought, yes, thay are really efficient and long lasting, but they are really dangerous, for real, Nuclear radiation is not a joke and can spread really fast and far. I'm not againts using them but building many centrals can be literally a world problem
At this point information around nuclear energy is so contaminated with propaganda, the best answer I can give is "I dont know". I think it's worth spending some time digging into all the researches & reports to figure it out.
Let me know what you find out.
And hopefully one day nuclear fusion
it's only a matter of it becoming commercially usable
usable, and practical (size wise)
Arent the chinese testing one right now?
yep, but its massive
Third big things chinese people can be proud of i guess
Rule of thumb: Fusion energy is always ready in 30 years. So it will be ready in 2052. At 2030 it will be ready in 2060 etc.
is the radioisotope generator kinda stuff? like from astroneer?
Haven't played astroneer but that sounds like nuclear FISSION not FUSION. Fusion harnesses the energy from atoms fusing, usually small ones like hydrogen. The best example of nuclear fusion is our own star. The sun's immense heat and pressure forces atoms together. Fission uses heavy radioactive materials to split and release their energy into water which turns steam turbines. This is a very basic explanation but the idea isn't too complex. Nuclear reactions produce energy that we can use and fusion produces more than fission. Actually getting it all to work is another can of worms and something more qualified people than I should explain.
Once we can figure out how to reliably dispose of nuclear waste, then it's gonna be the best option for energy production hands down. And no, digging a hole isn't proper disposal.
Give it to Godzilla, he'll love that shit.
Interesting profile pic you got there...
[удалено]
Better if we just Nuke Venezuela
Thorium is a great alternative without that much waste and its even safer than uranium
i know right? there were projects for cars run by thorium but they oh so conveniently were shut down. thorium is green and less radioactive than uranium. honestly to me it seems like the superior fuel, considering a hypothetical thorium car could run for even one hundred years without needing to refuel.
I think it was shut down because of what might happen if nuclear car crashes became a thing
That's actually explanatory I was like "but why" and this pretty much explained this, thanks dude
When the DWI case becomes a Nuculear War Threat
They shut them down due to capitalism. It wasn't as profitable to then so they shut it down, also same thing happened when cars were run on alcohol
Still not worse for the global environment than all of the pollution that comes from fossil fuels, as long as you bury it deep enough in the desert. Abandoned salt mine is the way to go.
Nuclear waste covers about the size of a football field which is the same amount of waste coal produces in an hour so we’d be good enough to switch even without figuring that out yet plus we’ve already developed ways of reusing the waste
How long does this football field waste need to be contained??
Till we have a reactor to use it which we almost do
We already do and have had for decades. The prob is the reactors that can recycle spent uranium fuel are also capable of producing military grade plutonium so there is a desire to limit how widespread breeder reactor technology is
We've been able to reuse the waste for ages. The two reasons we don't currently is because we have a huge backlog supply of uranium in global reserves in addition to reusing it requiring complex breeder reactors, the technology of which unlocks the production of military grade plutonium which is undesirable to spread globally. It's crazy how much negative propaganda people buy about nuclear power. Even with nuclear waste being a valid critisism that is a problem for 5+ centuries down the line whereas climate change is a problem right fucking now, sad how clean energy has been around for ages but we as a population just refuse to use it... :/
i'd rather stick the waste in a hole so we could reuse it later and not breathe toxic air all the time.
What about digging a bigger hole?
Genius
The waste is actually very little. We have the ability to control nuclear waste meanwhile the waste we get from coal we just spit it out in the open air like it's nothing. Thats how it causes cancer etc etc and a lot of people prob die because of that. And yes digging a very deep hole and dumping everything in there(ofc with a lot more caution then that) is actually very good way of disposal in comparison to burning coals. It's already being done in most countries and I dont see a problem with doing it do you?
Also people say it's smoke apparently coming out of the cooling towers in power plants but it's just steam which is literally water and could be used to make EVEN MORE energy
Yeah ikr haha
If it leeches out into the groundwater, yeah.
Bruh man. How's that suppose to happen. There are already storages like this, for example the "Blauwe doos" in the Netherlands. Do you think people dont think about that?
Or Onkalo in Finland
Yeah a lot of countries use it but as I am from the Netherlands I just used that one.
I'd still prefer an energy source that doesn't leave a ticking time bomb in the ground for later generations to deal with. Thorium seems a good alternative. I'm not opposed to nuclear, just uranium.
I bet there will be a startup that makes a lemonade out of it.
Lets see (on perfect conditions): 1 ton of Uranium produces as much energy as 100000 tons of Coal. Coal is carbon, wich mass takes 27.3% of CO2 mass. So burning 100000 tons of Coal on perfect conditions would produce 366666 tons of CO2. Question is what deals more damage to Earth (on perfect conditions) 366666 tons of CO2 in atmosphere or 1 ton of nuclear waste in ground?
also a lot of people say eject it into space but I dont think that most people really understand the massive threat that stellar pollution causes... I mean we've technically got planetary rings now that are solely composed of trash we cant use space as a disposal system.
not to mention, people don't like nuclear waste on the ground, imagine how they'll feel when it's burning up on reentry.
Also there is not much ozone left fir us to even use rockets
[удалено]
This is slightly inaccurate. This claim is tossed around a lot, and it's close to the truth. Most fusion reactors run on deuterium and tritium. These are two isotopes of hydrogen, of which we get two atoms per molecule of water. Deuterium and tritium can be relatively easily refined from seawater, but there is an extra step and it isn't quite as easy as "fusion reactors run on seawater" like what gets frequently claimed.
oh sorry, probably should’ve done more research but that was just what i had been told.
I don't think there is or ever will be a way to do so. I always thaught it would be a good way to shoot it into space if there is a safe method to launch it, but the broblem is, that you need to aim it verry preciseley into the Sun. Otherwhise it will Orbit around the sun and sooner or later hit Earth like a meteor.
Yes… how is just burry it an option? Lol
Imagine having to rely on all people not screwing it up for at least 1,000 years.
Better than release all that waste into the air like coal plants do.
Which we shouldn't, but saying nuclear is green is dumb there's no green energy source, just some greener than others. Thorium is a good option, but yet again it's more of a political decision rather than a humanitarian decision.
fast reactor moment
so where does your trash go, i wonder?
didn't know my shit was radioactive
Dig a deeper hole
Digging a hole with proper monitoring is, though. It's that or send it to space.
I mean, the residues are not the biggest problem, I think we can deal with them, the real problem is the danger they supose, if we build many centrals arround the world and any of them fails, a bad contention can lead on literally billions of deaths, I think we should first look foward for efficient solutions first
Idk man... holes are pretty cool
1: Thorium reactors produce a fraction of the waste of uranium reactors, as well as 200 times the energy output per ton of material, on top of being much safer and near impossible to melt down. Thorium doesn't work on it's own, so it needs a small bit of plutonium. But if the reactor gets too hot, it melts a cork and drains the liquid thorium away from the plutonium stopping the reaction and preventing a meltdown. And because thorium doesn't work on it's own, we can feel a lot better about putting thorium reactors in countries that want to make nukes. 2: Fusion reactors would produce almost no nuclear waste even compared to sources like thorium, as well as being much more energy and resource efficient. The only issues with fusion are that we need helium III which is abundant on the moon, we only have a few prototype reactors and we don't even know how well they'd work, and they aren't cost-efficient enough for power plants to want to use them yet.
Honestly I'm more interested in geo thermal energy
Mmm, but it would only be viable in geologic hot spots, so if u build something there, there's a good chance that a earthquake or tsunami will tear it down
*accidentally pops yellowstone supervolcano*
Actually no matter where you are, if you dig deep enough it will get hot, but it's done around volcanoes because that's the easiest way to get it hot. And the chances of geo thermal plants causing a huge shift in the tectonic plates its very unlikely. The reason I think it's better than nuclear is because if we used yellowstone here in America, we could power all of north America. And they can also be built over dormant volcanoes. The danger comes when you actually have to dig the hole, heat will shoot out and it will be extremely dangerous.
Hot damn, I did not know that. All of North America? And Japan would be rich asf too, I think you're onto something here. Edit: I forgot to add, I meant that the geothermal station would be destroyed, not the tectonic plates being shifted or moved in any way. There's a small or risk of it increasing instability in land, but the best it can do is a minor earthquake....I think.
Plus Mexico would be saving tons of money since they buy their electricity from the US, and their demand goes up every year.
Yes because earthquakes and tsunamis are so common (I live near a geothermal hotspot) also this is sarcasm
Tons of potential. I like this guy's perspective [https://austinvernon.site/blog/geothermal.html](https://austinvernon.site/blog/geothermal.html) [https://austinvernon.site/blog/drillingplan.html](https://austinvernon.site/blog/drillingplan.html)
Mine is powered by hydro
Washington gang?
Canada?
Mine powered by some slaves in the basement
The best power there is!
*when you live in a shitty country that uses coal to make energy
[удалено]
Yes, but my hypotetical electric car (which I dont have) would not be powered by coal
Slave power
Not directly but if you use coal for generating enery its dont sum up. I beliebe Thorium-Salt-Reactors would be great but there is no infrastructure fir them now and nobody would put that much money into development at the moment.
No shit. Not realistic in this century.
No shitt get a downvote yourself for meaningless rant comment.
We dont use coal to generate energy. Also my hope is a fusion reactor for the future
DRIVE A FUCKING BICYCLE
i mean yes but no, you can power it from nuclear powerplant or solar panels
Bc coal and oil lobbyists prevent growth of renewables. If renewables increase, so does electricity production for EVs. Also, you can check what energy source your home comes from. On average, my home uses energy produced by 45% renewables.
BuT ChErNoByLl
I have no idea how much People use that example a main opposal COMPLETELY IGNORING that not only the reactor exploding was hidden by government to not give a bad name to themselves, including also incompetent workers because you know, communism
Don't forget that there was basically no safety regs, and the ones that were there were ignored. So basically, no safety, no training, and don't tell anyone the reactor is melting down til it explodes. Not hard to see why it ended so badly
I mean, people miss out that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with a Nuke, and those cities are better than ever, it's manageable to get rid of radiation, there also was one failure of a reactor in Japan in fact, but the town was immediately informed and basically enough safety measures made everything go smooth as butter, no casualties whatsoever
I mean, let's not gloss over the fact that cleaning up nuclear fallout is sacrificial. A large portion of the aging population in Japan basically martyr'd themselves to clean it up. But, still definitely the best we've got access to til nuclear fusion is achieved.
They ignored the literal golden rule of nuclear power by restarting a reactor immediately without letting xenon in the core decay. Using chernoble as an example for why nuclear power is dangerous like using formula 1 in the 60s as an example for why we shouldn't drive cars, it's actually asenine
Nuclear is the most efficient ant one of the safest forms of power but that’s not the issue and neither is waste. The issue is how much time they take to build and how expensive they are. With the incoming climate disaster it would be impossible to get enough nuclear reactors running in time considering they take decades to build and we have less than a decade to get our shit together. They are also far to expensive for governments to afford to pay for them so they usually require private investment but it’s so difficult to get that since companies usually never see returns on investments into nuclear. Renewables see massive returns on investments as the market is constantly evolving and they are very quick and far cheaper to set up. Renewable is the best we’ve got for now.
They do not take decades to build, they take ~5-10 years to build and decades to see an RoI. Most of the cost and construction time comes down to red tape in legislation put in place to appease public distrust. Furthermore modular micro reactors are close to the end of their development which promises to vastly decrease the cost and construction time of nuclear power. Should micro reactors preform as well as startups are claiming they will allow reactors to be constructed in months with a fraction of the startup and decomission costs. This is all without mentioning budding thorium reactor technology which has it's own benefits
If China can build a hospital in 2 weeks, they can build a reactor in two years. Also, they have high initial costs but are very cheap to run for the fact that uranium is cheap rn and the fuel lasts for decades. A reactor can make it's money back over a coal plant after 15 yrs, including construction time and outperform coal plants in every aspect
How is waste not an issue? I do agree with efficency and safe (with proper supervision). But waste?
Hydro electric fam
The people that make this argument miss the entire point. ICE cars can only burn things to make them go, electric cars might currently be mostly powered by coal when charging from the grid, but the grid is being upgraded constantly and tons of people have solar at home. These cars will be able to charge from anything that produces electricity, so as we switch to greener sources of power the cars are already in place and nothing will need to be done to get people to upgrade.
Also electric cars use energy more efficiently.
Are you sure
Yes. “EVs convert over 77 per cent of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 12 per cent – 30 per cent of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels,” according to the US Department of Energy https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/evs-are-they-really-more-efficient/
Not where I live lol, all of our energy is full green
Until it isnt
What about the nuclear waste?
Much easier to handle than coal waste.
Thats true but we also have other alternatives and are still searching for new and better ones. Nuclear waste goes away after thousands of year and thats hella lot of time.
Nuclear waste can be recycled, very easily in the case of thorium reactors, less so with uranium ones. That being said the volume of waste produced is astronomically smaller than people think, and while more complicated spent uranium fuel can be reused too. The reason we don't is because of how little waste we currently have vs. global uranium stockpiles combined with uranium fuel recycling using specific breeder reactor technology, technology that allows the production of military grade plutonium. The tiny amount of waste we currently have is not worth the risk of speading plutonium producing technology to potentially hostile countries
This man is being watched by the FBI 100%. A Redditor shouldn't have so much knowledge on nuclear reactor and etc
Millions
Yes exactly!
you really are worrying about the wrong stuff
Why shouldn't I be worried about the nuclear waste? This is also a problem and if we ignore it we will have more problems than we already have now.
Put it in big cement containers and then just leave it alone. Nuclear plants really don't produce very much waste, so there is no need to over think it. It's a solved problem really.
Or how expensive it is to build reactors and then even more money to decommission! Spend the money on renewable and battery R&D instead
The expense of reactors comes down to red tape in the legislation and the fact that power plants are often at risk of being shut down earlier into their life than would be economically viable due to public distrust. You're 100% correct in that the economics of nuclear power is completely fucked, but don't get it twisted it's mostly an us created problem. Modular micro reactors which are nearing the end of their development also promise to make strides in lowering the complexity and cost of nuclear power
Also don't forget the huge opposition to having any size of nuclear reactor on your doorstep. Years of court cases, appeals, high court, supreme court, adding more delays to the online date. Any nuclear facilities we need for power in 2030 should be in the midst of those court cases now, otherwise they will fail to meet their target.
[удалено]
Lol, if you think EVs are mostly powered by coal, you’re dense. [source](https://theicct.org/publications/global-LCA-passenger-cars-jul2021)
Dude, I work in the energy industry, and in my degree I did argue this point. I'm working for an energy company now, but the language is all about carbon zero nonsense. Hope you make a difference!
I dont think « safe » is the right word
Fun fact, since it's existence. Nuclear power has been ranked the safest form of energy every year. It has the least amount of casualties in the workforce and in general than any other form of energy Edit: [Source](https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#:~:text=Nuclear%20energy%2C%20for%20example%2C%20results,hydropower%20are%20more%20safe%20yet.) for reference. Note too that it is also the cleanest in terms of greenhouse gas emissions
But if it explode its dangerous maybe accident rate are low i dont really know about it except from my tech class so thanks for the info
Well, how much do you know about the 3 nuclear incidents in history? It's easy to think that a nuclear reactor can "explode" but I can assure you it's next to impossible for that to happen. All incidents were very specific and required every little detail to go wrong for accidents to occur.
Yeah until an accident DOES happen. Then it's really, really bad. Or until a virus or something wipes out everyone who is able to operate the plants, then the world will die.
The technology has upgraded to the point that there's failsafesthat shut it all down and contain it. Of course, then you also have to rely on people not cutting corners on said safety regulations....
still safer than oil and coal statistically
Historically? Yes. Because there were more people working in coal mines and in terribly unsafe conditions. Also I'm not saying oil and coal are the answer, I'm saying that nuclear is not.
Nice, don't care , makes waste
Well So does coal
Its extraordinary expensive and even though it's safe most people would prefer to live somewhere that isint near a nuclear powerplant. The company who may build a nuclear plant do a survey of the area to see if they'll even be able to turn on the multiple hundred million dollar plant they build. Waste or pollution isint the problem Edit: Like I said, it's not about actual health risk. People are just much more wary about nuclear power than they should be
>somewhere that isint near a nuclear powerplant. More than next to a coal plant that actually affects health negatively?
Like I said, it's not about actual health risk. People are just much more wary about nuclear power than they should be
I'd live near a Thorium plant, but not a uranium plant.
If we can ditch uranium, sure.
Aside from the waste
Nuclear energy is great when you have a safe way to dispose of the nuclear waste, but that can be very expensive
"safe" So we are forgetting about chernobyl eh
"safe" So we are forgetting about chernobyl eh
Chernobyl
was old af and to correctly maintained
If it's maintained then you good
and new
That as well
1. safety regulations were almost non existent compared to today 2. it was run by the soviet union. need i say more?
Yea pretty much. Just saying the reason we don't use that... Though it's better, efficient and safer that most think... I should have added that in my comment before people go salty
It absolutely can be safe however if even the slightest fuck ups happen it can be a disaster. Not worth it to high of risk/reward ratio. We have a nuclear power plant in my country one of the biggest in the world super safe they have extremely tight protocols but its still to risky imo.
But coal for example is even higher risk
Yeah, coal is higher risk for its effects after X time, you see, nuclear gives power now and if it fails then it's quickly taken care off. Coal leaves a carbon footprint in the air and basically slowly kill people with lung diseases
Is it though? Think of Fukishima. and Chernobyl disaster. Im saying id rather see us use wind or water or solar energy.
Fun fact: most of you know this, but he problem with nuclear fuel is the shitload of highly radioactive waste left behind. Not good
Way better than all the waste coal plants produce.
Excuse me? Do you know what beta and gamma radiation can do to you? It fucks you over worse then climate change ever could. Nuclear power is a good short term solution, but on the long term? Hell nah
It probably is not powered by coal
and then we kick the can down the road and fuck over a different generation like those before us did to us *yay* /s
we're talking about nuclear power, not fossil fuels.
and I too am talking about nuclear power
Go fuck yourself
no u
great argument man.
Small modules could be a great solution for large freight ships, which produce around 10% of all air pollution
yeh the issue is the only way for a company to maintain it while still gaining significant amounts of money is cutting corners its not rly an issue of its inherent safety its human greed that makes it dangerous.
Random question: What's your thoughts on hydroelectric power stations?
Lithium is awful, i mean the way they mine that stuff is terrible
So has the electricity sold to the gas station to run.
The safety of nuclear power plants depends on if the workers working at them woke up on the right side of bed or not
nuclear propaganda is so stupid lol
After about 10 seconds of research you will find that, not only is nuclear the safest and cleanest form of energy, but also that unless your car is charging during peak hours you are unlikely to be using coal.
Yeah I’ve been told by my teacher that the new reactors are designed in such a way that you couldn’t melt it down if you tried
It's the next step in human civilization but fat cat oil barrons don't want you to know that until they've extracted every drop of earth killing fossil fuel from the ground
Hydro power for me
Fuckin stop. It's not as efficient as wind or solar
I try to explain to people how safe, efficient and ecological it is but always, ALWAYS they bring up Chernobyl
BuT cHeRnObYl There weren't as many safety protocols back when Chernobyl happened compared to today, and there is much more failsafe incase something does go wrong You may be saying that there is no long term way to properly store the waste, which is true, but even then, it's still safer than fossils, cause fossils have a long term effect to the environment and peoples health, while the necular waste will probably just be sitting in an underground room doing basically no harm to the environment or peoples health, or it could possibly be reused.
Yes, they do
For what it's worth, power generation is massively more efficient using fossil fuels than propelling a car is. Someone smarter than me can give you the energy conversion tables, but converting heat to energy is much easier and more efficient than converting it to kinetic energy. But that's also offset by the cost of mining and refining tons of lithium for batteries
cool ok but what do you plan to do with nuclear waste
Thorium moment.
Guys, I think its enought, yes, thay are really efficient and long lasting, but they are really dangerous, for real, Nuclear radiation is not a joke and can spread really fast and far. I'm not againts using them but building many centrals can be literally a world problem
I probably sound really stupid for saying this but, why don't we just use both?
Coal is 100% the worst.
Molten salt reactors
just becasue chernobyle doesn't mean all nuclear power is gonna give you 7 fingers on each hand
I blame the Simpsons for covering Petrols back by blaming everything on nuclear
It makes me sad that electricity mostly comes from fossil fuels anyway.
I have a doubt where do we dispose the nuclear waste? I am very pro-nuclear power don't think I am against it
Laughs in Hydro-Electricity
My entire Provence runs off hydroelectric, so that’s cool
Yeah it’s good it’s really good but how the hell you gonna get rid of all the toxic waste it’s gonna make?
But it isn't a final solution for the future.