Nuclear Energy

I think we need more nuclear power plants.

The thing about nuclear energy that nobody ever likes to bring up is that the initial overhead costs are insanely huge.
They are so large that there is not one single reactor in human history that has operated for even one week without some form of subsidy.
Any endeavor to seriously transition to nuclear power would be massive, and if the political will existed, why just do nuclear?
In reality, nuclear power is one tool out of several that we're going to have to employ in the centuries to come if we want to keep this planet habitable, and it would be nice if we got real when speaking about it.

In France, nuclear plants are owned by the government.

nuclear energy is cool you faggots should kys

Nuclear is hands down our best option as of right now, but the media shows 2 meltdowns and now the public is terrified of it because they hear phrases like "reactors is critical" and think that means its going to explode. Disinformation campaign to maintain the status quo. Nuclear is incredibly clean and VERY efficient. Only a retard would say that nuclear isn't the best method we have so far

Checked

I don't think anyone itt has said anything overtly negative about nuclear energy, only that it has advantages and drawbacks. In my opinion, the benefits outweigh them enough that it is preferable to most other energy sources.

Nuclear waste can actually be recycled into more nuclear energy with breeder reactors, which would also increase the extractable energy from any amount of uranium by a factor of around 100. Seriously, it's so much better to use breeder reactors.

As well as that, according to the cambridge house of mining investment's research on energy related deaths, nuclear has fewer deaths per unit energy than any renewable

No itis not frog

This is why I'm not a Libertarian. Government can do that, they can put up the money and don't have to worry about profit.

waste is way worse

yeah too bad we can't atomize and dissipate nuclear waste products in the air like gas and coal. that would be a much better thing to do

>I have never heard of any good arguments against it
2/3 of current plants are leaking
the maximum lifespan of such establishment is 35 years
Kys

where does France bury its nuclear waste?

If we commoners bury our garbage we will be fined and maybe even jailed, but countries burying nuclear waste is no problemo. HONK HONK!

Same in Brazil, but our grid is already green anyway so it doesn't matter

2/3rds are leaking? gonna need a source for that one buddy

>Id:SO'Y
HOLY KEK, I'D CALL YOU A NIGGER BUT THIS IS WAY BETTER

>thorium
>exists
>thinks they understand science because they know salt is made of sodium and chloride

The current air is the cleanest we got in decades.

Do any of you retards do your research or you just regurgitate your nonsense

almost all of the spent nuclear fuel in the world that needs to be stored can fit in a single football field. if everyone was burying their trash it would take a lot more space

do you suck my dick? or do you just spend all day wasting air?

Just bury it. The Earth is pretty damn deep. The only reason that it's a problem is because faggots can't be bothered to pile up a few new mountain ranges.

solar is getting cheaper and more efficient, but still isn't in a great spot and the economics of having any power grid at all means that home solar can't give truly meaningful bill reductions without heavy subsidies.
nuclear is constrained by regulatory bullshit (thanks, oil and coal lobbies), has some actual issues. Waste does need to be stored, though burying it in the desert or in the same mines it comes out of are two good solutions - any scenario in which "but what if people can't read?" might apply is already well past the point of caring about higher-than-typical background radiation.
biggest two obstacles are media fearmongering and the pseudo-environmentalist renewable lobby, both of which contribute more to nuclear's high upfront cost than any actual engineering or construction considerations

Nuke is the best energy-source on the planet.
Which is why they don't want it here in the US.

Nuclear is good

wow found one in the wild. People like you are why I could never vote left. Nuclear is hands down the best option for (relatively) clean energy. Put the waste in yucca mountain and there will be zero problens.

>boiling water to run a steam turbine is the way of the future

Attached: brainlet.png (645x729, 74.68K)

Retard
Chernobyl failed because they used graphite as their moderator, while all modern reactors use water. In a runaway reaction, the water will boil off and the reaction stops. Graphite won't burn off. Its a completely failsafe system.
"Waste" isn't even a real thing. The americium in your smoke detectors is a waste product and we're literally going to run out because we don't burn the waste as fuel anymore. Reactors in the states are still using the original fuel manufactured 50 years ago. I get that not everyone is well versed in nuclear physics but if you can't be bothered to do even a basic level of research you shouldn't bother sharing your dumbass opinions

solar is getting much better and way cheaper as we speak, and commies fear the solar. It's the free market solution to the CO2 histeria, giving you the customer profits and durability instead of taxes.

steam engines are still one of the most efficient types of engines in the world. water has an amazing ability to store and transfer energy.

So you want to create electricity out of ether waves or something?

>burning plant matter is the way of the future
>strip mining is the way of the future
simple solution is often best

Lobbying against it from corporations already entrenched in the energy business combined with the average person thinking about nuclear bombs, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island whenever they think nuclear.
>Remember how fossil fuels have been fighting against solar and wind?
No. Because they haven't been. They've been the biggest force pushing for solar and wind because they know it's unable to replace them.
Nuclear is the only true way forward.
This is because nuclear gets fuck all in subsidies and has massive regulations. If every other energy production method were subject to the same shit nuclear is then electricity itself would be something reserved only for the most important occasions.

Nuclear power has a very high capital/kW cost compared to conventional energy sources. Ever wonder why the only vessels that have nuclear plants are naval?

Considering all the movements and fearmongering trying to keep Nuclear from gaining any dominance in the market should imply it's the right way to go.

it's easy, retard
>solar panels, wind turbines are incredibly easy to install
>nuclear energy takes a fucking decade, requires a metric fuckton of greenhouse gases to build in terms of material used, and has shit longevity
also
>wind turbine falls over due to human error; maybe 1 person is injured
>nuclear plant falls over due to human error; half the continent is uninhabitable for the next million years

because it's fucking heavy

It would be cheaper to put a couple of thermal plants on a volcano, regulating volcanic pressure as needed while using the heat as energy.

Nuclear is good, however and investment from a company isn't going to see a profit (likely) in the lifetime of the CEO who invests in it.

That's the core problem if we need to be honest about it. Not to mention that multigeneration projects eventually lead to a dipshit making calls that the engineers and people who know how it runs would disagree with.

In Fukashima I remember reading that one of the reasons that the tanks exploded is against the urging of the engineers water was pumped into the tanks against common sense.

Basically to make one run well - you need basically a 2-3 generations of people that don't cut corners or fuck everything up. For humans - that's asking alot.

because all of the other vessels were multipurpose ships including, I shit you not, a combination passenger liner and cargo chip
and each commercial vessel was tiny, far too tiny to be competitive even using conventional engines

Iceland has a lot of thermal energy. It's not using your idea but it's still pretty close.

I already addressed this. We can have nationalized nuclear energy like in France.

Fake news but ok.
We are still producing the cheapest electricity in europe and are extending the life span of our reactors to 60, maybe 80 years.
>if you don't maintain and upgrade them it's just another Chernobyl
Kek
You're just an NPC...
What happen in chernobyl happen in three miles island but since it's was a western reactor, no catastrophe followed, because we use containment building unlike in soviet RBMK reactor.
You're a fucking uneducated clown.

Attached: tired pepe.jpg (800x765, 71.23K)

Take the spaced-based solar pill

Attached: spacebasedsolar.jpg (800x450, 77.67K)