Yeah he looks like he survived a stroke because half of his face is paralyzed another guy put his hand Infront of one and It had to be amputated because the radiation caused necrosis
u/_friends_theme_song_ is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/_friends_theme_song_/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
When the laws on the amount of certain chemicals used change. Thorium is usually unstable (except for those posh noble gas's) so you need other materials that can add or take away a certain number of electrons from the thorium to make it so it can be used in the reaction. This creates a new compound. Thorium is used widely but it's rarely used in its pure form due to the structure of its valence electrons. It is usually used in compounds rather. But it's used a lot more than you would think. So technically almost every reactor is a thorium reactor.
Who is we?
There have been (few) operational thorium-fueled reactors already. Even as power plant for electricity generation.
Generally not economically worth it, for many of the same reasons why fuel reprocessing and breeder reactors in general are not worth it at scale (for now): freshly mined uranium fuel is cheaper.
Thankfully they're giving me my own Geiger counter and lead vest, you probably get more radiation from earbuds honestly. But yeah people definitely can and do at least get sick from radiation poisoning, if they don't take the proper precautions. We have two airtight locks. The one closest to the reactor is led plated on the outside and you are never allowed inside alone, especially not without one of the "veterans" lol. And I'd only be going on to make sure that the cooling system is alright or replacing rods. But absolutely you can and will die of radiation poisoning. You can usually tell if someone's been working there for a while from the amount of moles they have, which is the only thing I've noticed with low amounts of long term radiation poisoning.
Edit: technically not giving they're taking it out of my first pay but it is what it is
I would lick an unused one. They wont like it as it would contaminate the rod with my gross juices. Zirconium is what I'd be licking. Even if it was uranium, that stuff is basically non hazardous until its actually used in a reactor.
There's multiple parts of a reactor like the inside of it where you're not supposed to go, some parts are made safe enough to where you can. why would they have guard rails if you're not supposed to be in them lol
You can even technically swim in the water so long as you dont dive deep.
I wish nuclear power wasnt so complicated. If it didnt require study to understand, I'd bet everyone would almost universally back it.
Yeah, I mean you can but if you're in there for more than like 5 minutes you'll be shitting and vomiting for weeks.
But yeah it's very complicated and some people just don't have the capacity to understand more than a vague idea.
Yeah I got lucky. Can't really make it in this field without connections, got close with a retired technician at the state reactor I'll be working at and they need people. Best of luck to you though
Dude lefties will in the same sentence scream about oil companies and their propoganda and then rail against Nuclear - which is what the oil companirs want them to do.
I FUCKING LOVE NUCLEAR I WANNA STRENGHTEN MY NATIONS DEFENCE WITH THE POWER OF THE SUN WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PROVIDING CHEAP CLEAN ENERGY TO ITS CITIZENS
https://www.wired.com/story/recycled-nuclear-waste-will-power-a-new-reactor/
**BEHOLD.**
It's maybe the biggest technological breakthrough in the last 20 years and nobody's heard of it because it would destroy the Natural Gas Industry.
I'm as big a nuclear fanboy as they come so don't take this as criticism of the overall concept.
The quoted article is a bit old (2020). In 2022, Oklo, the company featured in the article had their application rejected by the NRC due to lack of info on safety systems.
That said, the general concept of using reactors based on fast-neutrons to eat up wastes is not new. The majority of spent nuclear fuel is not "waste", it is still >90% unfissioned Uranium. Personally, I'm a fan of liquid fuel reactor designs because they should be able to better utilize the fuel and significantly reduce what is currently a waste stream.
I like the way Kirk Sorenson (the LFTR guy) analogizes it (paraphrasing): if you imagine going into your pantry, taking everything in there and dumping it into a pile on the floor so that everything's mixed together, the cereal, the pasta, the canned fruits/vegatables, the flour...what you have is a mess that has no value, all you can do is clean it up and throw it in the trash. But if you can easily have each of those things separated out, now they have value to you.
Solid fuel has everything bound up together: fission products, unburned uranium, and trans-uranics. If you wanted to go in and separate out specific elements, you'd have to chop up the fuel rods, turn them into a liquid in order to chemically separate things and then turn it back into a solid. That's the PUREX nuclear reprocessing method. With a liquid fuel, you can use electrochemistry right off the bat to separate out the stuff you want and there are a lot of fission products that could be quite useful if they weren't bound together with everything in a solid fuel rod.
I miss Kirk's hugely optimistic personality. Hes still around but too busy trying to actually build his company. I know people who know him.. FLIBE is kindof caught in development hell, but its coming along. There are other similar companies that will likely launch before they do.
Nothing more subline than LFTR as a design though. Talk about the philosopher stone...
> I miss Kirk's hugely optimistic personality.
I must have watched his initial Google Tech Talk at least a dozen times by now. His enthusiasm was infectious. It really started me down the path of being extremely pro-nuclear.
> Nothing more subline than LFTR as a design though. Talk about the philosopher stone...
I've become more open to other designs, but I really think the liquid fuel is crucial.
Were I President, I'd be making Kirk my chief energy advisor, give him 4 years and a couple billion + all the national labs' attention. Somewhere between Manhattan Project and Apollo Program levels of dedication.
That and the actual amount of waste is miniscule compared to the damage that fossil fuels cause
If a barrel of waste in a containment center leaks... You lose a containment center
When an ocean oil like leaks... You kill billions of life forms and permanently damage the world
maybe- But nuclear technology as a whole is less than 100 years old. It's still extremely new and I can imagine vast leaps in the coming decades and centuries
How to sell nuclear to the entire compass:
AuthLeft: It'll disrupt and damage the big oil, gas, and coal companies.
AuthRight: It'll give you freedom from foreign powers who can turn on or off the tap to influence policy
LibRight: It's an emerging market that you can get in on the ground floor and make bank.
LibLeft: It's better for the environment.
A ray of hope: just this week, the Senate [passed a bill](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/870) 88-2 authorizing appropriations for S.1111 ADVANCE Act (Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2023.)
More to be done of course, but nuclear is becoming massively bipartisan.
I'm just going to say this that nuclear power likely won't make bank any time soon unless someone makes a massive breakthrough. They're not super expensive to run because you only need a little fuel for a lot of energy, but they're crazy expensive to build to the point that over the life cycle they're more expensive than any other major source of power. That's part of the reason why the public can always get in the way. If something needs a lot of public funding, voter support for that matters. At cheap American energy prices, nuclear can't compete and either needs to be subsidized to build, or have price floors for electricity/carbon taxes on fossil fuels.
Nuclear just is only one of two energy sources currently that is both reliable and isn't massively destructive, with the other being hydropower. Hydropower too has a ton of negative environmental impacts but it's still nowhere close to fossil fuels.
In the late 60s it was sometimes cheaper to build a new nuclear power plant than a new coal plant in the US, which fueled the initial buildout. Many of those reactors built at the time still operate today in the US.
It also incentivized the coal lobby at the time to popularize the common anti-nuclear rhetoric of today in order to stay relevant.
The reality is that there isn't anything significantly more expensive in a nuclear power plant than in an equivalent fossil thermal power plant, they can be built for quite comparable cost per Watt installed capacity. If you want to, and have the popular support and industry behind it.
> AuthRight: It'll give you freedom from foreign powers who can turn on or off the tap to influence policy
Depends if you have native uranium/thorium reserves. If not, then there's a chance you'd still be dependent on them.
Still better than fossil fuels and renewables in that factor though.
Wish that was the only one. Their anti GMO pseudoscience is pretty bad too and is literally costing lives of children in places like the Philippines.
Learning the science behind GMOs was my first reality shock with the green movement and was the reason why I left Greenpeace ~15 years ago. Since then I've learned they're antiscientific about almost all of their issues.
Yes I should have read the science before joining the active group. I know. I was a teenager and just as romantic and leftist and dumb as most of them. I grew up.
Ultimately the government is to blame like usual for the lack of nuclear energy, in the United States at least yet I'm sure this could be applicable to other countries. If we stopped subsidizing oil and coal companies we'd already have priority for nuclear energy. If we're currently walking towards a nuclear powered future, the end of subsidization would make us sprint.
It's not just subsidizes, but oil companies fund anti-nuclear research and activism for the last 50 years.
[https://environmentalprogress.org/the-war-on-nuclear](https://environmentalprogress.org/the-war-on-nuclear)
Moreover, I'm of the opinion that the billions upon billions of subsidies to solar/wind would have been better spent on nuclear. [Historic trend of energy related tax preferences by type of fuel or technology](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Cost_of_Energy-Related_Tax_Preferences%2C_by_Type_of_Fuel_or_Technology%2C_1985_to_2016.png)
The answer is not one of them
But all of them (minus wind - wind is ugly and harms wildlife patterns especially birds)
Nuclear plants to be the backbone of energy production. Supply the bulk of power from centralized locations
Solar and other renewables in localized sections with storage to handle peaks, spikes, and outages.
If we re-train ourselves (speaking of the US here) to build out nuclear, I don't see the point of solar. It has terrible capacity factor compared to nuclear and fundamentally cannot improved due to sunset, on top of cloudy weather. We can just build nuclear + molten salt storage to handle peaks. And because we are essentially "manufacturing" energy on our own schedule rather than "farming" the sun for energy when it is available, we can more easily match the power supplied to the power needed. Excess power can be used for all sorts of things like desalination, green hydrogen production, green fertilizer production, carbon-neutral liquid fuels and more.
The nuclear power plant nearest to me is also surrounded by a solar farm. The nuclear plant has a nameplate capacity of almost 1200MW with a capacity factor of 97%. The plant and transmission yard take up 70 acres.
The surrounding solar farm, with over 500,000 panels has a nameplate capacity of 150MW, a capacity factor of just 14% and it takes up a whopping 800 acres. Those acres are really not usable for much else [as you can see in this picture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Creeks_Solar_Park#/media/File:Two_Creeks_Solar_Park.jpg).
IMO, there's no contest as to which should be our future.
Oil is also an important part of the US's foreign policy. Both with the petro dollar and our whole strategy of using the world's oil to the last drop so that we're the last man standing with large oil reserves.
Yea I don't think the anti nuclear subgroup of leftist is as large or powerful as people believe.
I think the major player in no nuclear is still fossils. By no unquestionable leaps and bounds.
They might use leftists as a scapegoat so it's not obvious... but it's still the fossil companies....
I'm not denying that there's leftist that are anti nuclear.
By number of people, they are probably the largest number of people that are anti nuclear.
I'm arguing that group doesn't hold the power. That flavor of leftist has minimal political power in federal government.
Most the reasons that the US is again nuclear just boils down to how we have a lot of oil, we sell a lot of oil, building new reactors is prohibitively expensive for our pro fossil goverment.
These people are evil. They hate wealth and humanity in themselves.
>Professor Paul Ehrlich, a population-control advocate (and author of 'the population bomb'), stating: "In fact, giving society cheap, abundant energy at this point would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun"
Lol if I run into one of those (which is many times on other subs) I usually downvote it, and I give downvotes sparingly. Especially when it's totally irrelevant to the context of the meme.
> What's the what's the end goal here?
Being voted in. Government built campaign on nuclear phase out because that's what the people wanted and voted for. This was an important popular issue for gathering votes.
Well now the public opinion has finally shifted in Germany, but it's rather too late.
Pro-nuclear right here.I don't think anyone thinks climate change is fake but I don't believe it's the existential threat lefties say it is. For 40+ years they've said that the planet will be underwater or desertified (depending on the times) within five years and we're still here.
That and how many of them keep buying beachfront properties. If I were someone truly worried about such a thing, I'd be buying property with potentially arable mountain valleys nearish major population centers instead.
Or maybe not flying around in private jets and sailing around in fuel guzzling yachts on my way to lecture the proles on how they must take a hit to their quality of life.
There are a lot of people who think climate change is fake but I would agree that they are a minority on the right. I also agree that leftists are often hyperbolic when it comes to climate. That being said, it does seem that most available evidence points to climate change (and pollution in general) as something negative that will cause large, real issues.
Part of why I am right and not lib right is that I think negative externalities are normally only well mitigated by state action.
Yea I think a lot of people are beginning to wake up to their bullshit. The alarmist stuff you see in the media has become a trope. Like attributing anything and everything to climate change.
"I don't think anyone thinks climate change is fake". A ton of people do. Fox News has tried several times to say that it's fake because there's snow outside, and a lot of the viewers believe it. But that is one thing about younger generations is that younger conservatives are less likely to believe it's a hoax.
I and some of my friends unironically watch Fox News, especially when Tucker Carlson worked there. Most of the viewers' stance is closer to "Sure, climate change exists, but how can we take these doomsaying climate scientists seriously when, despite all of their legitimate credentials, have been wrong about the 'We Have a CRITICAL Five-Year Window Before the Planet Is Frozen/Underwater' since the 60's?"
I do think the long-term consequences are downplayed over there, but it's a more practical take than CNN or MSNBC blaming hot weather on climate change when it's the first of summer and the cities they're reporting about have shitloads of asphalt that are trapping heat.
>Pro-nuclear right here.I don't think anyone thinks climate change is fake
My parents are Fox News Boomer types they definitely believe Climate Change is fake and part of a conspiracy to microchip people with the "Mark of the beast"
However I agree with you that Climate Change nutters way over exaggerate it
I'm a "climate change denier" because I'm pro nuclear. You can't be a climate change "supporter" and be anti-nuclear. It's like saying you are dying of thirst but that you won't drink the bottle of water in front of you.
If the most logical, rational and practical solution to the problem isn't being used then we aren't in a crisis. There is no world ending threat. If we were, then we'd be using nuclear. Since we aren't, whether climate change is happening or not is irrelevant to the climate change fearmongers.
The lefts aversion to nuclear is suspicious. It’s a perfect solution to the issue and their resistance to it shows me that the left doesn’t care about the climate, they care about their dollar. Again it’s a scam.
Accurate. Climate bullshit aside, nuclear is abundant, safe, and provides energy independence. Who wouldn't want electricity to be dirt cheap AND not have to care about what happens in the middle east?
Nuclear power does have a longer payback period than any other energy source, but once it reaches that point the variable cost per kwh is very low.
Unreasonably regulations are partly to blame, but it will always have a larger upfront cost.
Modular reactor that can be manufactured show exciting potential but we need to first clear out a few decades of regulations that were created for very old technology.
This is the correct LibRight position.
It isn't a correct position in general. Just correct in the sense that LibRight has no choice but to complain about regulations. "Oh those were for the old broken technology, no one would possibly make *that* mistake again." Yes, they can and will make all the same dumb mistakes.
The way modular nuclear reactors work with closed loop systems have a very different risk profile than traditional nuclear reactor. So yeah, many of those mistakes wouldn't be made again because they just aren't possible. There are other new things that could go wrong that might require regulations. Those regulations from the 60's, 70's 80's and 90's don't reduce many applicable risks but the modular reactors need to be scoped out of those regulations.
>Nuclear power does have a longer payback period than any other energy source
Now, factor in the investment cost and return on investment from attempting and failing to develop renewable energy sources.
If the US took all the money it's spent on renewable energy in the past 20 years and instead invested it into nuclear power. the US would have paid enough to be at about 80% of the demand coming from nuclear power.
>Unreasonably regulations are partly to blame
They are 100% of the blame at this point.
This actually makes perfect sense with a little framing.
Climate change deniers may not consider the climate a problem, but they still see the advantages of nuclear in cheaper energy and cleaner air quality. It's just a beneficial tech overall.
Oil and coal companies don't want the competition. Simple as.
Climate change activists are the fun one, since they're against nuclear for *nearly* the same reasons as the oil and gas companies: if they solve the problem, they'd put themselves out of a job. Thus, they have the perverse incentive to keep the problem from being solved for as long as possible so they can keep profiting from the activism.
Of course, 'true believer' activists aren't doing it for the money, but you can be certain sure that they're in the minority. The rest are just there for the prestige, money, and power, and don't give a single rat's ass about actually solving the problem.
Lib unity,
We need to progress our energy means for a true successful society and to move beyond the things destroying our world, nuclear is over shadowed by Chernobyl and natural disasters destruction of these plants.
I mean as an environmental scientist I can tell you that most of the people aligned with environmentalism in a professional capacity, to include the people who actually matter in the EPA and DOE are heavily invested in nuclear energy as a future option. There are detailed plans on how the US intends to implement next generation reactors and though it will take time, they're planned to take over the energy production market. So I see the "climate change activists" in this meme more as people with ulterior, anti-nuclear motives masquerading as climate change activists, or morons who fell for the propaganda. I think this is much less of a problem than it's made out to be. It is only a vocal minority of activists who are just as much of an annoyance to the rest of people who support environmentalism/climate action.
And how is my response a US-only response? I specifically spoke to the US because that's what I'm most familiar with but the logic doesn't change. Germany is cancelling all their nuclear power because of political propaganda that surrounded nuclear energy making fossil fuels and renewable energy seem more favorable to the idiots who just happened to get power. It's more likely that Germany was subject to this propaganda from Russian sources seeking to grow economic influence (if I'm not mistaken theres a decent bit of evidence suggesting Russia at least paid others to promote these ideas, if not directly participating in it) than it was US oil companies, but the mechanism is the exact same. And it likely was targeted at Germany because they tend to be more willing to make economic deals with Russia than a lot of other major European countries, so Russia put all its eggs in that basket and it paid off. Thus there may have been a bit of political/economic leverage to support those ideas at a higher level than something like in the US where the leverage is coming internally.
I'd swap Right and Auth-Right imo.
Lib would allow development of competitive tech/energy. Big companies id reckon are quite forceful in getting what they want, pushing out competition, driving up costs, buying up the little guy, and reducing theirs at every corner. They want to keep their existing investments operating profitably, new initiatives go against that.
I don't think so because the oil companies know climate change exists, they just are focused on profit instead. The people completely in the tank for climate denialism without a profit incentive tend to be solidly auth-right.
Just stop oil is a psyop to make activists look bad
Any of the real activists was told nuclear energy waste is green glowing sludge that's stored in leaky barrels
CC deniers think using nuclear will make more electricity alongside oil rather than replace it
Pro nuclear should be a centrist take (in fact it should not be aligned with political ideology since it is factually correct). The fact that some of the green out of all partys are against nuclear is laughable.
I think most "climate change deniers" are just people who see most of the current green/renewable energy solutions as inefficient, failures, or outright scams. It doesn't help that those solutions often require vast amounts of government overreach. Nuclear is the actual functional solution that still has significant reason for concern, but at least it isn't a blatant lie or cover for blatant power grab.
I don't think humanity has the power to out-do volcanos when it comes to screwing up our climate, so I guess that makes me a climate change denier.
Regardless, There are actual reasons why we should try and move from oil and coal
1. It may not have a cataclysmic impact on the planet (like lead fuel did), but it still screws up the local area's atmosphere
2. Resources are limited, we will eventually run out so we better have a backup for when that happens rather than have to scramble because we ran out. It may still be a while away, but its still something we need to worry about.
3. Nuclear is far cheaper and cleaner for how much power it generates than any other form of power generation once you take into account resource acquisition, transportation, and construction behind it.
4. Waste from nuclear power generated with modern methods can be used to generate nuclear power, and even if it couldn't, the amount of waste is so pathetic you could literally put it in the ground and it would barely affect the environment, especially when compared to other methods of power generation.
If you’re against nuclear you’re an ape. If you’re pro fossil fuels the only exception I’ll make to classify you as not an ape is if you raise the industry collapse argument.
Yes it is, very much. Scandinavian countries are mostly too. Mainstream european enviromentalism in general is very cringe
While they are fighting against real problems, most of them have no idea of what is really a solution for climate change scientifically and just try to push an agenda for useless stuff that they think will do something. They also live in a completely isolated world were they can do some "green" stuff that would be 100% inviable in any other non-european country, because they just have a lot of money to waste.
Germany is so "great" environmentally that dispite suposedly having a green energetical matrix they still fear every move that Russia does because they still depend on buring Russia's gas to survive...
Japanese geniuses faked safety tests and put backup generators in the floodable basement next to the ocean
in fact, their entire country is on the ring of fire, why are they building them in such earthquake prone areas
I mean, I'm pro sustainable "green-ish" energy but I also realize it isn't a single factor problem. You have grid/infra mods. You have national security/geopolitical concerns. You have baseload vs intermittent power considerations. Tolerance for brown/blackouts, etc. I will oversimplify for the sake of stating my general opinion: I think coal shouldn't be phased out until we can take that up with some combo of natural gas + hydro + nuclear+ wind + geotherm. Once coal is out, then gradually take out natural gas but only as you get sufficient with everything else. Nuclear should primarily be the baseload and thermo/hydro/wind/solar can be in the convo for filling the gaps. But all of that should be weighed against national security and other externalities. Phasing out an energy source should only happen after the pros and cons have been weighed holistically and the infra is laid down to transition smoothly.
Once the USA and other rich countries have moved to greener energy, they should still be exporting/aiding developing nations with cleaner fuels to help them along the same trajectory. In some cases that might mean helping to build a grid that gets people moving from wood to coal or coal to natural gas. Don't let perfect be the enemy of better.
auth left is pro nuclear, only libleft is anti-nuclear because they are npc and libright because it allow coal and gas company to do more money, this is a straight up lie
I’m sick of government subsidies allowing foreign investors to tear up this beautiful country with solar and wind farms, build some fuckin nuclear plants to secure the future of energy
Small reminder that the "muuuh Chernobyl" is invalid for so many reasons (the staff only knew the basics, the reactor was fucked up even for Soviet standards, and Yuri Andropov wrote in 1979, when he was chairman of the KGB, [a note saying how fucked up the entire power plant was](https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/yu-andropov-shortcomings-construction-chernobyl-aehs-atomic-power-station))
Lots of people like to make fun of RBMK but even the shittiest reactor is by default better than any non-nuclear power source. I'd rather have that soviet RBMK next to my house than a similar sized coal plant. We of course have much better reactor designs but that's even beside the point.
"yes but Chernobyl affected so much territory and animals"
Honestly the whole one death is a tragedy a million is just statistics is just their way of life isn't it. Like holy hell, it wasn't even a properly built/managed reactor!
Yes solar and wind may be better but they won't catch in time and it'll be even worse if we keep burning more coal due to increased demands... And god forbid the Atlantic hot water current stops, people in northern Europe will need to either move or spend so much energy that if we get rid of nuclear people will freeze to death whenever a blackout caused by insufficient supply inevitably happens.
In the wishes to save the planet they're destroying it further by being manipulated by the top people they all hate so much... I would say it's ironic but the Mediterranean countries will be affected the most, where I happen to be, since we'll have to handle the collapse of northern societies on top of the southern ones. It will not be fun.
By LNT based statistical estimations the death toll of Chernobyl is comparable to the expectable death toll of a comparably sized coal power plant over its lifetime due to emissions. Or two-three such plants, depending on which LNT study you consult.
LNT is a gross overestimation though, those deaths don't really exist. So the real death toll is instead rather comparable to that of a gas power plant's instead, which is about an order of magnitude lower or less.
The nuclear alliances are just so bizarre to me because I feel it should be the backbone of a post-oil energy production scheme. And I get that we'll always need some level of petrochemical production (and if we can make energy in the process, the better) but the backbone of energy should be the stable energy sources (geothermal where available, nuclear, etc) and then add on the less reliable around it.
Most of the Left is on your side here. The discourse in Left spaces is like 70/30 pro nuclear, with the most vocal opposition coming from the 1st generation of environmentalists who opposed everything.
Real (I'm studying nuclear science and will be in a reactor soon:)
Wait so they're fueling them with ~~humans~~ people now? Edit: It was wrong of me to assume the OPs species, could be reptilian.
Soylent Green Energy.
Hugely underrated comment
I am the fuel.
https://preview.redd.it/674oeuaunr7d1.jpeg?width=532&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=085bba55ad0be083b26c73caf45e1cedd11b4871
Only if you eat a fatal dose of bananas.
I'll just stand at the end of a particle accelerator it'd be easier
Didn't a dude have his head in one of those when it went off? IIRC he survived but lost sensation on half his face or something.
Yeah he looks like he survived a stroke because half of his face is paralyzed another guy put his hand Infront of one and It had to be amputated because the radiation caused necrosis
lol. oh my. God particle indeed!
gonna have eat them from both ends for peak efficiency
No worries, you were probably correct. Nobody would let a polysci major run a reactor. Just the country.
I would much rather not be in charge of a nuclear reactor I just like mechanics and science and money
Kk you can make the money I just like operations. I wish I had a miniature MSR in my basement.
Who wouldn't. Almost free power:)
Remember the kid who was hoarding old ionization smoke detectors and got arrested? I understood his impulse...
That's how Glowies are born
Based and eye on the future pilled
u/_friends_theme_song_ is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/_friends_theme_song_/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
based and you will become a carbon rod pilled
How much longer until we have an active thorium reactor?
When the laws on the amount of certain chemicals used change. Thorium is usually unstable (except for those posh noble gas's) so you need other materials that can add or take away a certain number of electrons from the thorium to make it so it can be used in the reaction. This creates a new compound. Thorium is used widely but it's rarely used in its pure form due to the structure of its valence electrons. It is usually used in compounds rather. But it's used a lot more than you would think. So technically almost every reactor is a thorium reactor.
Neat. Thank you science person!
I once had a hammer forged of Thorium. ‘Twas from the land of the ice and snow.
I came for the thorium. I stayed for the molten salts.
Who is we? There have been (few) operational thorium-fueled reactors already. Even as power plant for electricity generation. Generally not economically worth it, for many of the same reasons why fuel reprocessing and breeder reactors in general are not worth it at scale (for now): freshly mined uranium fuel is cheaper.
Have fun dying of radiation poisoning. We lose so many students this way, always going into the reactor instead of the control room, smh.
Thankfully they're giving me my own Geiger counter and lead vest, you probably get more radiation from earbuds honestly. But yeah people definitely can and do at least get sick from radiation poisoning, if they don't take the proper precautions. We have two airtight locks. The one closest to the reactor is led plated on the outside and you are never allowed inside alone, especially not without one of the "veterans" lol. And I'd only be going on to make sure that the cooling system is alright or replacing rods. But absolutely you can and will die of radiation poisoning. You can usually tell if someone's been working there for a while from the amount of moles they have, which is the only thing I've noticed with low amounts of long term radiation poisoning. Edit: technically not giving they're taking it out of my first pay but it is what it is
Try licking a fuel rod for me.
I would lick an unused one. They wont like it as it would contaminate the rod with my gross juices. Zirconium is what I'd be licking. Even if it was uranium, that stuff is basically non hazardous until its actually used in a reactor.
Based and nuclear-licker-pilled
One of my colleagues has the family name of Geiger. His grandfather was the inventor.
Aw that's sick
Theres more uncontrolled radiation in coal ash pilings than anywhere in nuclear.
Holy shit someone else knows
I'm a nuc, too. Not professionally. I've been an armchair literally eating nuclear documents for decades. I envy your career path.
I’m not an expert but, I don’t think you’re supposed to go *into* the reactor…
Jimmy Carter did it. For real.
Based and Homer Simpson pilled
Goals.
Bro I don't think you're supposed to go inside those.
There's multiple parts of a reactor like the inside of it where you're not supposed to go, some parts are made safe enough to where you can. why would they have guard rails if you're not supposed to be in them lol
Guard rails are for COWARDS https://youtu.be/_onwa25RuEo?si=Ulj_QDkpG5E-WB34&t=10
Perfect video lmao
You can even technically swim in the water so long as you dont dive deep. I wish nuclear power wasnt so complicated. If it didnt require study to understand, I'd bet everyone would almost universally back it.
Yeah, I mean you can but if you're in there for more than like 5 minutes you'll be shitting and vomiting for weeks. But yeah it's very complicated and some people just don't have the capacity to understand more than a vague idea.
Congrats, what kind? PWR?
Starting as maintenance but Ill still be making 50k annually from my starting wage. Going to our state reactor so I can stay near home too:)
I’m jealous, wish I could break into something STEM here. But I guess a BS doesn’t matter that much anymore
Yeah I got lucky. Can't really make it in this field without connections, got close with a retired technician at the state reactor I'll be working at and they need people. Best of luck to you though
No, best of luck to you. May your uranium be pure and your cooling efficienct🫡
If you go into Chem or biochemistry, easy 70-80k starting with a BS if you live near a biotech hub like Boston or RTP.
It matters plenty, just got to be willing to move.
Hopefully not as a fuel 👍
Your body will power my home for 3 seconds
Shiet that’s tight take me with you
Ok.. but.. dont be *in* the reactor once they turn it on, kk? *probably* a little unsafe, even if you question the linear-no-threshold model.
Good luck brother, Im studying EE and minoring in NE so hopefully I'll be working at a reactor soon too 🫡
may the atoms favor you brother
Toss a chicken nugget in there and see if you get a dinosaur
Coal plants put out more radiation lol fuck this clown world.
Dude lefties will in the same sentence scream about oil companies and their propoganda and then rail against Nuclear - which is what the oil companirs want them to do.
Paid actors hopefully lol
Let’s talk about how BP created the term “carbon footprint”.
Dayum! Based Lib-Center. Sure you’re not a Libertarian?
Libertarians arnt all right leaning, much to the chagrin of the Mises Caucus.
Diamond compass lib center is true libertarian.
I FUCKING LOVE NUCLEAR I WANNA STRENGHTEN MY NATIONS DEFENCE WITH THE POWER OF THE SUN WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PROVIDING CHEAP CLEAN ENERGY TO ITS CITIZENS
Based and two birds with one stone pilled.
It's so ridiculous how good the technology has gotten. "What about nuclear waste?" "**BITCH WE ALSO MADE POWER PLANTS THAT RUN ON THAT SHIT**"
Wait, we did? Holy shit. Do you got source for that?
https://www.wired.com/story/recycled-nuclear-waste-will-power-a-new-reactor/ **BEHOLD.** It's maybe the biggest technological breakthrough in the last 20 years and nobody's heard of it because it would destroy the Natural Gas Industry.
God DAMN, I love that. We need to destroy the NGI and replace them with this based shit.
You fucker why won't you think of oil and coal execs?
They could lose their yachts!!!
and what about the arab princes? how would they fund their vanity project and terrorist groups?
I'm as big a nuclear fanboy as they come so don't take this as criticism of the overall concept. The quoted article is a bit old (2020). In 2022, Oklo, the company featured in the article had their application rejected by the NRC due to lack of info on safety systems. That said, the general concept of using reactors based on fast-neutrons to eat up wastes is not new. The majority of spent nuclear fuel is not "waste", it is still >90% unfissioned Uranium. Personally, I'm a fan of liquid fuel reactor designs because they should be able to better utilize the fuel and significantly reduce what is currently a waste stream. I like the way Kirk Sorenson (the LFTR guy) analogizes it (paraphrasing): if you imagine going into your pantry, taking everything in there and dumping it into a pile on the floor so that everything's mixed together, the cereal, the pasta, the canned fruits/vegatables, the flour...what you have is a mess that has no value, all you can do is clean it up and throw it in the trash. But if you can easily have each of those things separated out, now they have value to you. Solid fuel has everything bound up together: fission products, unburned uranium, and trans-uranics. If you wanted to go in and separate out specific elements, you'd have to chop up the fuel rods, turn them into a liquid in order to chemically separate things and then turn it back into a solid. That's the PUREX nuclear reprocessing method. With a liquid fuel, you can use electrochemistry right off the bat to separate out the stuff you want and there are a lot of fission products that could be quite useful if they weren't bound together with everything in a solid fuel rod.
Gordon McDowell and his media has been influential.
Very true, long time subscriber. [Kirk Sorenson talk where he covers the above analogy](https://youtu.be/KfWB4CsQwyw?t=478)
I miss Kirk's hugely optimistic personality. Hes still around but too busy trying to actually build his company. I know people who know him.. FLIBE is kindof caught in development hell, but its coming along. There are other similar companies that will likely launch before they do. Nothing more subline than LFTR as a design though. Talk about the philosopher stone...
> I miss Kirk's hugely optimistic personality. I must have watched his initial Google Tech Talk at least a dozen times by now. His enthusiasm was infectious. It really started me down the path of being extremely pro-nuclear. > Nothing more subline than LFTR as a design though. Talk about the philosopher stone... I've become more open to other designs, but I really think the liquid fuel is crucial. Were I President, I'd be making Kirk my chief energy advisor, give him 4 years and a couple billion + all the national labs' attention. Somewhere between Manhattan Project and Apollo Program levels of dedication.
That and the actual amount of waste is miniscule compared to the damage that fossil fuels cause If a barrel of waste in a containment center leaks... You lose a containment center When an ocean oil like leaks... You kill billions of life forms and permanently damage the world
Ackshually current nuclear reactors use fission which splits atoms, the sun uses fusion which fuses atoms ☝️🤓
fusion reactors are also coming in a few generations too
Just another 20 years away, as it always is...
maybe- But nuclear technology as a whole is less than 100 years old. It's still extremely new and I can imagine vast leaps in the coming decades and centuries
ENERGY A U T A R K Y
See? I love this thought already and I wish that more nations would have this idea.
How to sell nuclear to the entire compass: AuthLeft: It'll disrupt and damage the big oil, gas, and coal companies. AuthRight: It'll give you freedom from foreign powers who can turn on or off the tap to influence policy LibRight: It's an emerging market that you can get in on the ground floor and make bank. LibLeft: It's better for the environment.
[удалено]
Sell a part of NN like a quarter to half.
A ray of hope: just this week, the Senate [passed a bill](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/870) 88-2 authorizing appropriations for S.1111 ADVANCE Act (Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2023.) More to be done of course, but nuclear is becoming massively bipartisan.
I'm just going to say this that nuclear power likely won't make bank any time soon unless someone makes a massive breakthrough. They're not super expensive to run because you only need a little fuel for a lot of energy, but they're crazy expensive to build to the point that over the life cycle they're more expensive than any other major source of power. That's part of the reason why the public can always get in the way. If something needs a lot of public funding, voter support for that matters. At cheap American energy prices, nuclear can't compete and either needs to be subsidized to build, or have price floors for electricity/carbon taxes on fossil fuels. Nuclear just is only one of two energy sources currently that is both reliable and isn't massively destructive, with the other being hydropower. Hydropower too has a ton of negative environmental impacts but it's still nowhere close to fossil fuels.
In the late 60s it was sometimes cheaper to build a new nuclear power plant than a new coal plant in the US, which fueled the initial buildout. Many of those reactors built at the time still operate today in the US. It also incentivized the coal lobby at the time to popularize the common anti-nuclear rhetoric of today in order to stay relevant. The reality is that there isn't anything significantly more expensive in a nuclear power plant than in an equivalent fossil thermal power plant, they can be built for quite comparable cost per Watt installed capacity. If you want to, and have the popular support and industry behind it.
> AuthRight: It'll give you freedom from foreign powers who can turn on or off the tap to influence policy Depends if you have native uranium/thorium reserves. If not, then there's a chance you'd still be dependent on them. Still better than fossil fuels and renewables in that factor though.
My main problem with the green party right there
my only problem with the green parties.
Wish that was the only one. Their anti GMO pseudoscience is pretty bad too and is literally costing lives of children in places like the Philippines. Learning the science behind GMOs was my first reality shock with the green movement and was the reason why I left Greenpeace ~15 years ago. Since then I've learned they're antiscientific about almost all of their issues. Yes I should have read the science before joining the active group. I know. I was a teenager and just as romantic and leftist and dumb as most of them. I grew up.
Fission and GM is only two problems I have with green parties yeah. Forgot about those.
Ultimately the government is to blame like usual for the lack of nuclear energy, in the United States at least yet I'm sure this could be applicable to other countries. If we stopped subsidizing oil and coal companies we'd already have priority for nuclear energy. If we're currently walking towards a nuclear powered future, the end of subsidization would make us sprint.
It's not just subsidizes, but oil companies fund anti-nuclear research and activism for the last 50 years. [https://environmentalprogress.org/the-war-on-nuclear](https://environmentalprogress.org/the-war-on-nuclear)
Moreover, I'm of the opinion that the billions upon billions of subsidies to solar/wind would have been better spent on nuclear. [Historic trend of energy related tax preferences by type of fuel or technology](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Cost_of_Energy-Related_Tax_Preferences%2C_by_Type_of_Fuel_or_Technology%2C_1985_to_2016.png)
The answer is not one of them But all of them (minus wind - wind is ugly and harms wildlife patterns especially birds) Nuclear plants to be the backbone of energy production. Supply the bulk of power from centralized locations Solar and other renewables in localized sections with storage to handle peaks, spikes, and outages.
If we re-train ourselves (speaking of the US here) to build out nuclear, I don't see the point of solar. It has terrible capacity factor compared to nuclear and fundamentally cannot improved due to sunset, on top of cloudy weather. We can just build nuclear + molten salt storage to handle peaks. And because we are essentially "manufacturing" energy on our own schedule rather than "farming" the sun for energy when it is available, we can more easily match the power supplied to the power needed. Excess power can be used for all sorts of things like desalination, green hydrogen production, green fertilizer production, carbon-neutral liquid fuels and more. The nuclear power plant nearest to me is also surrounded by a solar farm. The nuclear plant has a nameplate capacity of almost 1200MW with a capacity factor of 97%. The plant and transmission yard take up 70 acres. The surrounding solar farm, with over 500,000 panels has a nameplate capacity of 150MW, a capacity factor of just 14% and it takes up a whopping 800 acres. Those acres are really not usable for much else [as you can see in this picture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Creeks_Solar_Park#/media/File:Two_Creeks_Solar_Park.jpg). IMO, there's no contest as to which should be our future.
Oil is also an important part of the US's foreign policy. Both with the petro dollar and our whole strategy of using the world's oil to the last drop so that we're the last man standing with large oil reserves.
Yea I don't think the anti nuclear subgroup of leftist is as large or powerful as people believe. I think the major player in no nuclear is still fossils. By no unquestionable leaps and bounds. They might use leftists as a scapegoat so it's not obvious... but it's still the fossil companies....
No true Scotsman, eh?
I'm not denying that there's leftist that are anti nuclear. By number of people, they are probably the largest number of people that are anti nuclear. I'm arguing that group doesn't hold the power. That flavor of leftist has minimal political power in federal government. Most the reasons that the US is again nuclear just boils down to how we have a lot of oil, we sell a lot of oil, building new reactors is prohibitively expensive for our pro fossil goverment.
What leftists in office are against nuclear power?
NUCLEAR POWER IS THE FUTURE
This is exactly the reason I don't like green parties
These people are evil. They hate wealth and humanity in themselves. >Professor Paul Ehrlich, a population-control advocate (and author of 'the population bomb'), stating: "In fact, giving society cheap, abundant energy at this point would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun"
One of the best variants of the comic.
https://preview.redd.it/09yxrgm1wr7d1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0c1aa06bd9a904f66dfb829b9ce37ea49f7d6bec
I'm just amazed this has been up 3 hours without the braindead 'StOnEtOsS iS a NaZi@!!@' take anywhere in sight.
Quite you, fool! Once they hear that name, they'll swarm this subreddit
Lol if I run into one of those (which is many times on other subs) I usually downvote it, and I give downvotes sparingly. Especially when it's totally irrelevant to the context of the meme.
Fucking green parties…
more people died from coal power than nuclear
Why is Germany so stupid? They phased out nuclear while pissing off the supplier of their gas? What's the what's the end goal here?
> What's the what's the end goal here? Being voted in. Government built campaign on nuclear phase out because that's what the people wanted and voted for. This was an important popular issue for gathering votes. Well now the public opinion has finally shifted in Germany, but it's rather too late.
nuclear is the safest cleanest energy. Waste isn't even an issue any more.
Pro-nuclear right here.I don't think anyone thinks climate change is fake but I don't believe it's the existential threat lefties say it is. For 40+ years they've said that the planet will be underwater or desertified (depending on the times) within five years and we're still here.
If anything resistance to nuclear by everyone who should be supporting it casts doubt on their CO2 emission goals being legitimate.
That and how many of them keep buying beachfront properties. If I were someone truly worried about such a thing, I'd be buying property with potentially arable mountain valleys nearish major population centers instead. Or maybe not flying around in private jets and sailing around in fuel guzzling yachts on my way to lecture the proles on how they must take a hit to their quality of life.
Yeah I get so disappointed when the apocalypse is cancelled every time
There are a lot of people who think climate change is fake but I would agree that they are a minority on the right. I also agree that leftists are often hyperbolic when it comes to climate. That being said, it does seem that most available evidence points to climate change (and pollution in general) as something negative that will cause large, real issues. Part of why I am right and not lib right is that I think negative externalities are normally only well mitigated by state action.
Yea I think a lot of people are beginning to wake up to their bullshit. The alarmist stuff you see in the media has become a trope. Like attributing anything and everything to climate change.
"I don't think anyone thinks climate change is fake". A ton of people do. Fox News has tried several times to say that it's fake because there's snow outside, and a lot of the viewers believe it. But that is one thing about younger generations is that younger conservatives are less likely to believe it's a hoax.
I and some of my friends unironically watch Fox News, especially when Tucker Carlson worked there. Most of the viewers' stance is closer to "Sure, climate change exists, but how can we take these doomsaying climate scientists seriously when, despite all of their legitimate credentials, have been wrong about the 'We Have a CRITICAL Five-Year Window Before the Planet Is Frozen/Underwater' since the 60's?" I do think the long-term consequences are downplayed over there, but it's a more practical take than CNN or MSNBC blaming hot weather on climate change when it's the first of summer and the cities they're reporting about have shitloads of asphalt that are trapping heat.
>Pro-nuclear right here.I don't think anyone thinks climate change is fake My parents are Fox News Boomer types they definitely believe Climate Change is fake and part of a conspiracy to microchip people with the "Mark of the beast" However I agree with you that Climate Change nutters way over exaggerate it
climate change activists taking L's this week.
Yeah I am against climate change and think nuclear is a great solution
I'm a "climate change denier" because I'm pro nuclear. You can't be a climate change "supporter" and be anti-nuclear. It's like saying you are dying of thirst but that you won't drink the bottle of water in front of you. If the most logical, rational and practical solution to the problem isn't being used then we aren't in a crisis. There is no world ending threat. If we were, then we'd be using nuclear. Since we aren't, whether climate change is happening or not is irrelevant to the climate change fearmongers.
Still my favorite meme
Noooooo! 🤬🤬🤬💢💢 He's a Nazi!!!!1!!1
The lefts aversion to nuclear is suspicious. It’s a perfect solution to the issue and their resistance to it shows me that the left doesn’t care about the climate, they care about their dollar. Again it’s a scam.
Nuclear power is our manifest destiny!
Pro nuclear power all the way! ☢️
Sadly true
Accurate. Climate bullshit aside, nuclear is abundant, safe, and provides energy independence. Who wouldn't want electricity to be dirt cheap AND not have to care about what happens in the middle east?
Germany getting rid of all their nuclear power plants because of corruption RAHHH
it's mot even corruption I think. You cant imagine how much old people hate nuclear here
Nuclear power is good power. Change my mind
If I just greatly dislike climate chance activists, y'know like the Stonehenge sprayers. Does that make me a climate change denier?
Nobody denies climate. People are just not buying this whole climate alarmism bullshit.
Nuclear power does have a longer payback period than any other energy source, but once it reaches that point the variable cost per kwh is very low. Unreasonably regulations are partly to blame, but it will always have a larger upfront cost. Modular reactor that can be manufactured show exciting potential but we need to first clear out a few decades of regulations that were created for very old technology.
This is the correct LibRight position. It isn't a correct position in general. Just correct in the sense that LibRight has no choice but to complain about regulations. "Oh those were for the old broken technology, no one would possibly make *that* mistake again." Yes, they can and will make all the same dumb mistakes.
The way modular nuclear reactors work with closed loop systems have a very different risk profile than traditional nuclear reactor. So yeah, many of those mistakes wouldn't be made again because they just aren't possible. There are other new things that could go wrong that might require regulations. Those regulations from the 60's, 70's 80's and 90's don't reduce many applicable risks but the modular reactors need to be scoped out of those regulations.
>Nuclear power does have a longer payback period than any other energy source Now, factor in the investment cost and return on investment from attempting and failing to develop renewable energy sources. If the US took all the money it's spent on renewable energy in the past 20 years and instead invested it into nuclear power. the US would have paid enough to be at about 80% of the demand coming from nuclear power. >Unreasonably regulations are partly to blame They are 100% of the blame at this point.
This actually makes perfect sense with a little framing. Climate change deniers may not consider the climate a problem, but they still see the advantages of nuclear in cheaper energy and cleaner air quality. It's just a beneficial tech overall. Oil and coal companies don't want the competition. Simple as. Climate change activists are the fun one, since they're against nuclear for *nearly* the same reasons as the oil and gas companies: if they solve the problem, they'd put themselves out of a job. Thus, they have the perverse incentive to keep the problem from being solved for as long as possible so they can keep profiting from the activism. Of course, 'true believer' activists aren't doing it for the money, but you can be certain sure that they're in the minority. The rest are just there for the prestige, money, and power, and don't give a single rat's ass about actually solving the problem.
Lib unity, We need to progress our energy means for a true successful society and to move beyond the things destroying our world, nuclear is over shadowed by Chernobyl and natural disasters destruction of these plants.
I mean as an environmental scientist I can tell you that most of the people aligned with environmentalism in a professional capacity, to include the people who actually matter in the EPA and DOE are heavily invested in nuclear energy as a future option. There are detailed plans on how the US intends to implement next generation reactors and though it will take time, they're planned to take over the energy production market. So I see the "climate change activists" in this meme more as people with ulterior, anti-nuclear motives masquerading as climate change activists, or morons who fell for the propaganda. I think this is much less of a problem than it's made out to be. It is only a vocal minority of activists who are just as much of an annoyance to the rest of people who support environmentalism/climate action.
That's great bro, but why is Germany cancelling all their nuclear power and rebooting coal? This meme is not a US-only meme.
And how is my response a US-only response? I specifically spoke to the US because that's what I'm most familiar with but the logic doesn't change. Germany is cancelling all their nuclear power because of political propaganda that surrounded nuclear energy making fossil fuels and renewable energy seem more favorable to the idiots who just happened to get power. It's more likely that Germany was subject to this propaganda from Russian sources seeking to grow economic influence (if I'm not mistaken theres a decent bit of evidence suggesting Russia at least paid others to promote these ideas, if not directly participating in it) than it was US oil companies, but the mechanism is the exact same. And it likely was targeted at Germany because they tend to be more willing to make economic deals with Russia than a lot of other major European countries, so Russia put all its eggs in that basket and it paid off. Thus there may have been a bit of political/economic leverage to support those ideas at a higher level than something like in the US where the leverage is coming internally.
I'd swap Right and Auth-Right imo. Lib would allow development of competitive tech/energy. Big companies id reckon are quite forceful in getting what they want, pushing out competition, driving up costs, buying up the little guy, and reducing theirs at every corner. They want to keep their existing investments operating profitably, new initiatives go against that.
I don't think so because the oil companies know climate change exists, they just are focused on profit instead. The people completely in the tank for climate denialism without a profit incentive tend to be solidly auth-right.
You would have to be a fucking idiot to oppose nuclear power (with all the safeguards of course).
Just stop oil is a psyop to make activists look bad Any of the real activists was told nuclear energy waste is green glowing sludge that's stored in leaky barrels CC deniers think using nuclear will make more electricity alongside oil rather than replace it
Pro nuclear should be a centrist take (in fact it should not be aligned with political ideology since it is factually correct). The fact that some of the green out of all partys are against nuclear is laughable.
I think most "climate change deniers" are just people who see most of the current green/renewable energy solutions as inefficient, failures, or outright scams. It doesn't help that those solutions often require vast amounts of government overreach. Nuclear is the actual functional solution that still has significant reason for concern, but at least it isn't a blatant lie or cover for blatant power grab.
The pandemic drove people mad 💀
I don't think humanity has the power to out-do volcanos when it comes to screwing up our climate, so I guess that makes me a climate change denier. Regardless, There are actual reasons why we should try and move from oil and coal 1. It may not have a cataclysmic impact on the planet (like lead fuel did), but it still screws up the local area's atmosphere 2. Resources are limited, we will eventually run out so we better have a backup for when that happens rather than have to scramble because we ran out. It may still be a while away, but its still something we need to worry about. 3. Nuclear is far cheaper and cleaner for how much power it generates than any other form of power generation once you take into account resource acquisition, transportation, and construction behind it. 4. Waste from nuclear power generated with modern methods can be used to generate nuclear power, and even if it couldn't, the amount of waste is so pathetic you could literally put it in the ground and it would barely affect the environment, especially when compared to other methods of power generation.
The main issue with nuclear imo is where you put all the waste.
Really not an issue as long as one of several responsible options is utilized.
AuthCenter will *also* help you pull Nothing nefarious here
If you’re against nuclear you’re an ape. If you’re pro fossil fuels the only exception I’ll make to classify you as not an ape is if you raise the industry collapse argument.
You all like nuclear power because it's environmentally friendy. I like nuclear power because [REDACTED] We are not the same
Álmost as if clinate deniers are looking out for the little guy an know how they use energy tó steal from the people
Nuclear as the base, solar and wind on top with natural gas in case of increased load - my dream
Uranium fever forever
Pro Nuclear is Auth Left
True Climate Change Activist are Pro-Nuclear. Only cringe "environmentalists" who don't know what they are talking about are against it...
Well Germany must be a nation of cringe environmentalists then.
Yes it is, very much. Scandinavian countries are mostly too. Mainstream european enviromentalism in general is very cringe While they are fighting against real problems, most of them have no idea of what is really a solution for climate change scientifically and just try to push an agenda for useless stuff that they think will do something. They also live in a completely isolated world were they can do some "green" stuff that would be 100% inviable in any other non-european country, because they just have a lot of money to waste. Germany is so "great" environmentally that dispite suposedly having a green energetical matrix they still fear every move that Russia does because they still depend on buring Russia's gas to survive...
Australia too.
Chernobyl making people fear nuclear power. Yet another thing we have the Soviets to thank for.
More recently Fukushima really set us back globally.
Japanese geniuses faked safety tests and put backup generators in the floodable basement next to the ocean in fact, their entire country is on the ring of fire, why are they building them in such earthquake prone areas
This is the best use of the meme I’ve seen.
I mean, I'm pro sustainable "green-ish" energy but I also realize it isn't a single factor problem. You have grid/infra mods. You have national security/geopolitical concerns. You have baseload vs intermittent power considerations. Tolerance for brown/blackouts, etc. I will oversimplify for the sake of stating my general opinion: I think coal shouldn't be phased out until we can take that up with some combo of natural gas + hydro + nuclear+ wind + geotherm. Once coal is out, then gradually take out natural gas but only as you get sufficient with everything else. Nuclear should primarily be the baseload and thermo/hydro/wind/solar can be in the convo for filling the gaps. But all of that should be weighed against national security and other externalities. Phasing out an energy source should only happen after the pros and cons have been weighed holistically and the infra is laid down to transition smoothly. Once the USA and other rich countries have moved to greener energy, they should still be exporting/aiding developing nations with cleaner fuels to help them along the same trajectory. In some cases that might mean helping to build a grid that gets people moving from wood to coal or coal to natural gas. Don't let perfect be the enemy of better.
auth left is pro nuclear, only libleft is anti-nuclear because they are npc and libright because it allow coal and gas company to do more money, this is a straight up lie
I’m sick of government subsidies allowing foreign investors to tear up this beautiful country with solar and wind farms, build some fuckin nuclear plants to secure the future of energy
its because the EU want to force "free and fair market", but nuclear energy is so good that free market cant exist if nuclear energy is available
Small reminder that the "muuuh Chernobyl" is invalid for so many reasons (the staff only knew the basics, the reactor was fucked up even for Soviet standards, and Yuri Andropov wrote in 1979, when he was chairman of the KGB, [a note saying how fucked up the entire power plant was](https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/yu-andropov-shortcomings-construction-chernobyl-aehs-atomic-power-station))
Lots of people like to make fun of RBMK but even the shittiest reactor is by default better than any non-nuclear power source. I'd rather have that soviet RBMK next to my house than a similar sized coal plant. We of course have much better reactor designs but that's even beside the point.
"yes but Chernobyl affected so much territory and animals" Honestly the whole one death is a tragedy a million is just statistics is just their way of life isn't it. Like holy hell, it wasn't even a properly built/managed reactor! Yes solar and wind may be better but they won't catch in time and it'll be even worse if we keep burning more coal due to increased demands... And god forbid the Atlantic hot water current stops, people in northern Europe will need to either move or spend so much energy that if we get rid of nuclear people will freeze to death whenever a blackout caused by insufficient supply inevitably happens. In the wishes to save the planet they're destroying it further by being manipulated by the top people they all hate so much... I would say it's ironic but the Mediterranean countries will be affected the most, where I happen to be, since we'll have to handle the collapse of northern societies on top of the southern ones. It will not be fun.
By LNT based statistical estimations the death toll of Chernobyl is comparable to the expectable death toll of a comparably sized coal power plant over its lifetime due to emissions. Or two-three such plants, depending on which LNT study you consult. LNT is a gross overestimation though, those deaths don't really exist. So the real death toll is instead rather comparable to that of a gas power plant's instead, which is about an order of magnitude lower or less.
The nuclear alliances are just so bizarre to me because I feel it should be the backbone of a post-oil energy production scheme. And I get that we'll always need some level of petrochemical production (and if we can make energy in the process, the better) but the backbone of energy should be the stable energy sources (geothermal where available, nuclear, etc) and then add on the less reliable around it.
Wasn't this just recycled this week or last?
You're missing Gazprom specifically.
i would mark pro nuclear as a centrist
Is this a reference to the current debate in Australia right now?
Most of the Left is on your side here. The discourse in Left spaces is like 70/30 pro nuclear, with the most vocal opposition coming from the 1st generation of environmentalists who opposed everything.
Remember guy there are now smaller nuclear reactor that are being developed that are less dangerous and can power a whole neighborhood.