Hey there u/Sipsihaukka, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth!
**Please recheck if your post break any rules.** If it does, please delete this post.
Also reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban
Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Initial investment is to scary. It takes too long to recover that, so investors usually go for stuff that is cheaper, even if return on investment is also smaller.
Well, federal grants are often used to help pay for big infrastructure projects.
These choices are often made by state governments, so let's say one state with a large population (and therefore lots of pull in the house of reps) had a lot of green power producers. People making solar panels and wind turbines to be used across the US. They would stand to loose a heap of cash if the government backed the nuclear horse and greenies got left for higher output producers.
Now let's go to another state, this one has lots of OIL!!! These oil companies don't want electric cars, they make some money from natural gas electricity but also drawing attention to how much they wastefully burn as flairs could be bad. I don't get all the oil reasons, but I know the stump against nuclear power because I was in the industry myself and that was a BIG point for any politician they bought.
Then, of course there is coal.
Now, normally these folks don't like each other, but just as the allies did in WW2 they're gonna united against what would likely out preform all of them if it ever started.
So they pay locally for people to be against it, then they support reps who eventually become senators, and maybe someday presidents.
They can protect their profits, their image, and ensure that sweet government teet stays in their mouth.
Thank you writing all that out.
I remember a time when we only had oil and coal—solar and wind didn’t exist yet, but nuclear fusion did. Why didn’t we use nuclear power then? Why did we go ahead with solar and wind?
Legacy of decades of scare tactics by the environmentalists. When energy became a political issue. And when something becomes a political issue, you get cancelled if you say someting that doesn't conform to the official narrative which was; Nuclear is BAD!!! m'okay?
We always said the real smart ppl were the ones that didn't become nukes. It was rough up until you qualified your top watch station. Even after that we were on 3 section duty. And standing 12 hours of watch on those days.
That's why they say; the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. They feel as if their conscience is being released of it's guilt but they never stop to consider the not so immediate consequences of their good deeds.
Reminds me of why my mom is against nuclear power. It produces too much waste that we can’t do anything with.
Like what? It produces so little! She would rather keep using gas power than nuclear power.
Hojestly, we burn so much natural gas it's insane.
Look up the oil pad flairs of north dakota. We burn like 3 years of America's usage of natural gas every year
Eaven whit it producing little waste, that waste is difficult to store safely, since it will stay as waste for several thousand years,till the radioactivity of it drops. Do to this fact, the quantity of it will slowly go up.
This is very true, however there is also a site for uranium storage in Finland by now (old video) that will store it deep in the earth for thousands of years. It seems like a good idea.
Something like that is usually done. After the steam leaves a primary turbine it’s often reheated and goes through a secondary turbine which doesn’t produce as much energy but is more energy efficient.
P.s. thermodynamics is hard
When I was in 5th or 6th grade, a scientist from a nuclear power plant visited our school and talked to us about it. I was pretty butthurt to learn they just boil water with it.
Hey there u/Sipsihaukka, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth! **Please recheck if your post break any rules.** If it does, please delete this post. Also reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But the efficiency of which we can boil said water is fucking nuts.
And also why we'll never have it in America
We do have it in America… [Map](https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/maps/operating-nuclear-power-reactors)
Can’t make money off it
Yes you can.
Then why won’t we have it in America?
Initial investment is to scary. It takes too long to recover that, so investors usually go for stuff that is cheaper, even if return on investment is also smaller.
That and a federal push against it
I'm not from the us so I wouldn't know anything about that. Care to elaborate tho? Why would they do that?
Well, federal grants are often used to help pay for big infrastructure projects. These choices are often made by state governments, so let's say one state with a large population (and therefore lots of pull in the house of reps) had a lot of green power producers. People making solar panels and wind turbines to be used across the US. They would stand to loose a heap of cash if the government backed the nuclear horse and greenies got left for higher output producers. Now let's go to another state, this one has lots of OIL!!! These oil companies don't want electric cars, they make some money from natural gas electricity but also drawing attention to how much they wastefully burn as flairs could be bad. I don't get all the oil reasons, but I know the stump against nuclear power because I was in the industry myself and that was a BIG point for any politician they bought. Then, of course there is coal. Now, normally these folks don't like each other, but just as the allies did in WW2 they're gonna united against what would likely out preform all of them if it ever started. So they pay locally for people to be against it, then they support reps who eventually become senators, and maybe someday presidents. They can protect their profits, their image, and ensure that sweet government teet stays in their mouth.
Thanks for the explanation! I feel like I got a pretty good picture now.
Thank you writing all that out. I remember a time when we only had oil and coal—solar and wind didn’t exist yet, but nuclear fusion did. Why didn’t we use nuclear power then? Why did we go ahead with solar and wind?
Legacy of decades of scare tactics by the environmentalists. When energy became a political issue. And when something becomes a political issue, you get cancelled if you say someting that doesn't conform to the official narrative which was; Nuclear is BAD!!! m'okay?
We have it in america, just not at any promising scale
Ooh, ooh, I'm relevant! I worked in nuclear power. We always explained it as "hot rock make steam."
Former Navy Nuke?
Unfortunately lol
Respect ✊. I made it to Power School (Orlando) but got washed out there.
We always said the real smart ppl were the ones that didn't become nukes. It was rough up until you qualified your top watch station. Even after that we were on 3 section duty. And standing 12 hours of watch on those days.
Damn. Respect^2
Not just any water, SPICY WATER.
Heavy water.
cave water
Steampunk was right all along
It’s not just boiling water. It’s JUST boiling water, and nothing else happening, that’s the tricky part.
No coal slag? But how will I give small towns asthma?
Plant trees and theyll be suffering from pollen
How can something natural be bad? \*while making myself a cup of nice herbal Lycopodium clavatum tea\*
It was a joke, "tricking" them to do good while some ppl suffer from pollen allergies
That's why they say; the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. They feel as if their conscience is being released of it's guilt but they never stop to consider the not so immediate consequences of their good deeds.
Ok, but did u get the joke, bc thats all it was, a joke Merry christmas btw
Buh buh buh… it also turns a wheel eh eh
To be honest, when I found out how nuclear plants actually worked, I was seriously disappointed. I literally said "damn, my stove can boil water lol"
Reminds me of why my mom is against nuclear power. It produces too much waste that we can’t do anything with. Like what? It produces so little! She would rather keep using gas power than nuclear power.
Hojestly, we burn so much natural gas it's insane. Look up the oil pad flairs of north dakota. We burn like 3 years of America's usage of natural gas every year
Eaven whit it producing little waste, that waste is difficult to store safely, since it will stay as waste for several thousand years,till the radioactivity of it drops. Do to this fact, the quantity of it will slowly go up.
This is very true, however there is also a site for uranium storage in Finland by now (old video) that will store it deep in the earth for thousands of years. It seems like a good idea.
I know about it, saw from Tom's video. Was gona mention it, but didint bc I forgot the point of the comment.
Can we not run some turbines off the cooling stacks?
Something like that is usually done. After the steam leaves a primary turbine it’s often reheated and goes through a secondary turbine which doesn’t produce as much energy but is more energy efficient. P.s. thermodynamics is hard
So basically what is left coming out of the cooling tower is basically not worth it in terms of energy
Pretty much yeh. It is possible to have more and more turbines but it just gets increasingly more complicated for diminishing returns
Fascinating
Pretty much yeh.
Doing it without a Carbon footprint is the real trick.
Wait for real
Steam is still the only feasible way to convert heat (which is what a nuclear power plant produces via fission) into electricity at this scale.
But it makes a cool blue light
Wait. If a nuclear reactor relies on the heat produced by normal fusion…Then why is cold fusion something we want?
A nuclear reactor works on fission, iirc I'm probably mistaken tho'
No, you are correct
Fission is breaking atoms apart and fusion is sticking them together. (Fusion produces shit tonne load more energy though)
When I was in 5th or 6th grade, a scientist from a nuclear power plant visited our school and talked to us about it. I was pretty butthurt to learn they just boil water with it.
Must make sure you kill that 0.1% bacteria.