I support nuclear power. It is cheaper and kills less people then most to all forms of electricity and it is available year round even when it's night or not windy, so no batteries needed.
Nuclear power is awesome.
Posts
Total:
52
-->
@Alec
Indeed, it save lives in the case of WW2, legit my uncle did a paper on why nuking Japan was better than the alternative and the teacher failed him!
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The first nuke on Japan was necessary,but the second one seemed a little excessive.
-->
@DarthVader1
Nuclear power gradually depletes the number of nuclear bombs that exist because the bombs are used as fuel.
-->
@Alec
That's certainly a nice thing.
Guess you haven't watched Chernobyl
-->
@Alec
Where the fuk did you get that fairytale?
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Including Chernobyl related deaths, the death rate from nuclear power is still less then most to all alternative forms of electricity. It certainly beats solar.
-->
@disgusted
Where the fuk did you get that fairytale?
It's background knowledge.
America cannot be like the French though.
-->
@Alec
There are better things to try then radiation that destroys the people and place. Three Mile Island cost over a billion to clean up in the 1990's. Wind and water, geothermal are all better than solar too but let's go with the most toxic alternative.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
There are better things to try then radiation that destroys the people and place.
It's done in a safe way and the radiation is kept away from people.
Three Mile Island cost over a billion to clean up in the 1990's
It saved way more then that in electricity costs. If done in a rural area, then if it does explode, then very few people die.
-->
@Alec
You can use the energy surplus to generate hydrogen, which can then be transported for general use in fuel cells.
-->
@Alec
Fuck the Earth then. Who needs it.
-->
@Alec
Thousands of people die in coal mines every year. Even more die from air pollution, much more deaths than from simple global warming where you can simply relocate to a better climate. Many people also die from LNG extractions as well, even though it burns cleanly.
While coal will never be obsolete as we need it to make steel and other things and you can't generate the heat you need from solar, Nuclear power can save lives today by replacing many coal and gas power plants. Not a single person died from 3 mile island, but the coal plants the sensational media event helped to create ended up killing millions.
-->
@Alec
Where the fuk did you get that fairytale?
It's got absolutely nothing to do with knowledge.
-->
@Greyparrot
We going to pretend anyone cares about coal miners? LOL
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Yeah, they are deplorable. I forgot.
-->
@Greyparrot
lol, were deplorables ok nice gross generalization Hillary Clinton
-->
@Alec
There’s not really a safety issue with Nuclear at all; its expensive and wipes out a lot of land for a long time; but major events are rare and don’t kill many people. Deaths are only higher for solar as solar deaths normally include people falling off roofs, so it’s not a fully fair comparison.
What the main financial issue is that the cost of Nuclear is somewhat hidden as from what I’m aware the recorded cost mostly doesn’t take into account major costs of big nuclear disasters. Worse, it’s not actually that cheap, it’s possible to build nuclear plants today; part of the issue is not all down to lack of will to build, but they’re not actually particularly economical - it’s why there are often large tax incentives and subsidies to allow for them. With massive cost overruns, it’s not often clear what the true cost of Nuclear actually is.
You have issues with FBRs being too far out to be economical, and needing much more investment in research to be mainstream, without them, burn up rates mean that Uranium supply is problematic for a major ramp up in nuclear power. While former nuclear weapon material can be used in reactors, this is lot a long term strategy.
I don’t think any plants need to be shut down now; even RBMKs are safeness now: but I think I question the long term economics of nuclear power given how drastically the price of renewables has been falling.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
At least I got hotsauce in mah bag.
-->
@Greyparrot
Nice argument! You have destroyed ME I HAVE GOTTEN OWNED OMG.
I’d give you a nasty look but you’ve already got one.
If you’re going to be two-faced, at least make one of them pretty.
I love what you’ve done with your hair. How do you get it to come out of the nostrils like that?
If laughter is the best medicine, your face must be curing the world.
The only way you’ll ever get laid is if you crawl up a chicken’s ass and wait.
It looks like your face caught fire and someone tried to put it out with a hammer.
If I wanted a bitch, I’d have bought a dog.
I’d like to see things from your point of view, but I can’t seem to get my head that far up your ass.
I’ve seen people like you before, but I had to pay admission.
Scientists say the universe is made up of neutrons, protons and electrons. They forgot to mention morons.
You’re so fat you could sell shade.
Why is it acceptable for you to be an idiot but not for me to point it out?
Your lips keep moving but all I hear is “Blah, blah, blah.”
Your family tree must be a cactus because everyone on it is a prick.
You’ll never be the man your mother is.
Did you know they used to be called “Jumpolines” until your mum jumped on one?
Just because you have one doesn’t mean you need to act like one.
I’m sorry, was I meant to be offended? The only thing offending me is your face.
Someday you’ll go far… and I hope you stay there.
Which sexual position produces the ugliest children? Ask your mother.
Stupidity’s not a crime, so you’re free to go.
If I had a face like yours I’d sue my parents.
Your doctor called with your colonoscopy results. Good news – they found your head.
No, those pants don’t make you look fatter – how could they?
What’s the difference between your girlfriend and a walrus? One has a moustache and smells of fish and the other is a walrus.
Save your breath – you’ll need it to blow up your date.
You’re not stupid; you just have bad luck when thinking.
If you’re going to be two-faced, at least make one of them pretty.
I love what you’ve done with your hair. How do you get it to come out of the nostrils like that?
If laughter is the best medicine, your face must be curing the world.
The only way you’ll ever get laid is if you crawl up a chicken’s ass and wait.
It looks like your face caught fire and someone tried to put it out with a hammer.
If I wanted a bitch, I’d have bought a dog.
I’d like to see things from your point of view, but I can’t seem to get my head that far up your ass.
I’ve seen people like you before, but I had to pay admission.
Scientists say the universe is made up of neutrons, protons and electrons. They forgot to mention morons.
You’re so fat you could sell shade.
Why is it acceptable for you to be an idiot but not for me to point it out?
Your lips keep moving but all I hear is “Blah, blah, blah.”
Your family tree must be a cactus because everyone on it is a prick.
You’ll never be the man your mother is.
Did you know they used to be called “Jumpolines” until your mum jumped on one?
Just because you have one doesn’t mean you need to act like one.
I’m sorry, was I meant to be offended? The only thing offending me is your face.
Someday you’ll go far… and I hope you stay there.
Which sexual position produces the ugliest children? Ask your mother.
Stupidity’s not a crime, so you’re free to go.
If I had a face like yours I’d sue my parents.
Your doctor called with your colonoscopy results. Good news – they found your head.
No, those pants don’t make you look fatter – how could they?
What’s the difference between your girlfriend and a walrus? One has a moustache and smells of fish and the other is a walrus.
Save your breath – you’ll need it to blow up your date.
You’re not stupid; you just have bad luck when thinking.
-->
@Ramshutu
Considering the safety record of plants built in the 60's and the 70's...it's clear that the NRC today has much more costly regulations in place for new construction that probably are not warranted. And they are not as subsidized as you might think considering the voter pushback due to media frenzy on the fake dangers of Nuclear plants. Solar get far more subsidies even though the waste from solar panels are far more toxic in volume and far less controllable than the relatively small volumes of Nwaste.
-->
@Greyparrot
um......ok
-->
@Greyparrot
Firstly, the bulk of the cost of building and running a nuclear power plant are initial capital outlay, fuel, and decommissioning. Given that most of the safety methodology are similar to other industry (but applied based on nuclear issues), the Design Basis accident that they are designed against are actually pretty reasonable. The reason north western Japan is currently habitable, is the multiple layers of safety and redundancy afforded by nuclear safety regulations. If these were laxer safety regulations, or this was a Soviet era RBMK with cut corners and lax safety, you’d be looking at catastrophic releases of radiation. These regulations are mostly the reason that meltdowns are rare; and more people are directly harmed due to accidental overexposure from faulty Radiation therapy equipment.
Secondly, the toxicity of solar powers is largely overly dramatic. The US for the moment, as it’s in an industry not filtering money to republicans - has regulations relating to pollution caused by these toxic chemicals, as does Europe : which do a very good job of negating the pollution. Equipment recycling is slightly harder for now, less so in Europe, as there are so few panels to recycle right now. Still this doesn't cover CSPs or any other type of renewable so the point is largely moot.
Beat yet, though, Solar is currently viable economically without any subsidies, and plants are being built around Southern Europe and even into Germany without benefiting from subsidies.
The financial and environmental cost of keeping a nuclear plant running or extending its life, are minimal and trivial: and I do object strongly to countries eliminating this Nuclear Capacity before EOL - but at us same time, the technology is fairly mature, highly expensive, takes too long to build and require such an up front investment that it’s not competitive without government assistance - given that the multiple hundred billion dollar price tag for any accident there is - the true overall dollar cost of Nuclear is equivalent or greater than that of Renewables, which are not currently a fully mature technology - and as such will continue to decrease in cost.
-->
@Ramshutu
All of these points are true, but not relevant to Nuclear power in the USA.
USA does not build their nuclear plants in tidal zones, so comparisons to Japan are not helpful.
We (along with much of Europe) do not currently recycle our solar panel waste and other plastics and electronics and instead ship it of to Indonesia (formerly China until they banned the practice) where most of the byproducts of recycling goes straight into the Pacific Ocean to the dismay of Democrats.
The basic designs of plants built in the 60's and 70's are safe and structurally sound, and the massive costs of new construction most definitely has its roots in in over regulations that did not exist during the construction of the viable plants built in the 60's and the 70's. Many of these regulations were purchased by the coal and oil and gas industry. These industries purchase both Democrats and Republicans to impose regulations to destroy the competition, because that is how regulations work in a crony economy. You can easily verify that these industries donate to both parties. Even Trump donated to the Democrats for that reason. USA does not have a free market.
In the USA Solar is still far more subsidized on a wide scale than Nuclear power if you choose to break it down by dollars spent vs gigawatt produced.
The reason for this is the creation of subsidy policies responding to persistent voter fears from decades of misinformation about Nuclear Power.
-->
@Greyparrot
Let’s first address some innacuracies
Firstly you very much do have reactors in tidal areas. There are multiple reactors on the Us Coast, and all reactors are generally near some significant water source due to cooling water requirements. This renders almost all susceptible to coastal or river flooding events - and given recent news - these can be substantial. The issue is not direct damage, but issues relating to infrastructure damage. The issue at Fukushima was the flooding - an event that can happen pretty much anywhere.
By all means though, feel free to specify the exact safety regulation you object to, and its imposed cost.
For E waste, it is currently illegal to ship eWaste to deceloped countries. While some people do it illegally, the number is a few percent - not “much of”. This is inherently why regulations. When consequences have no financial cost, the market will not minimize the Consequences. This is kind of the inherent backward thinking on regulations coming from much of the right: Complain that there is a regulation on dumping toxic waste in the ocean or exporting waste to countries that will dump it in the ocean - then take issue when toxic waste is dumped in the ocean.
This is literally why regulations have a valid place: the market maximizes profit and minimizes cost. If the cost you need minimized is not financial, market ain’t going to fix it.
Literally the source of the current climate crisis is that the cost of pollution is 0, even the source of the whole nuclear discussion here is that the inherent cost of carbon pollution and cost of toxic waste pollution is 0. Nuclear plants are close to financially unviable because gas and coal plants don’t have to pay to clean up the pollution they cause - preventing true market competition.
The us spends $1bn on Nuclear subsidies - this is active subsidies on running power plants. This doesn’t include loan guarantees, and other proposed tax breaks and subsidies that would be applied to building new reactors. When Westinghouse went bankrupt, there was at least $6bn I loan gaurentres on the hook.
Solar plants have subsidies to build, and for individuals to buy panels, long term operation doesn’t require that much: and unlike nuclear are become
less necessary as the price of solar has been falling - and is cheap enough to no longer requires subsidies in some countries. Nuclear has already requires some capital outlay support, and it would be interesting to compare the total subsidy cost per me of historical subsidies for solar and nuclear - that’s a much more valid way of comparing.
If you think regulations are not purchased for the sole purpose of destroying competition, then you have not been paying attention lately. Even Google recently actively promoted regulations within in it's own industry, not out of altruism, but because they knew what it would do to their competition. Net Neutrality was heavily financed and promoted by those industustries that had the most to gain by destroying competition.
The main goal of a company in order to maximize profit is to destroy competition either through a superior product, or by using the force of government to smash the competition with regulations. Government has been a willing mercenary in the crony capitalism game for decades, taking money from anyone at any time, all the while lying to the voters that if they did not do it, then corporations would most CERTAINLY kill their consumers. Any business that kills or harms their consumers can't remain as a monopoly without government force.
It's a pure dream to believe most regulations in D.C. are driven solely by altruism. It's always a mixture of crony capitalism and voter misinformation.
The campaign donation lists do not lie, especially when big money donates to BOTH parties, then you know the system is rigged.
As construction on solar panel farms progresses, the costs will rise, as there exist "golden zones" for solar energy where you get a profitable return on your investment. Solar panels vary in efficiency depending where they are on the globe. As these regions are saturated and panel farms must find other locations to generate energy, the price per gigawatt produce will most certainly rise. Nuclear Power does not have any "golden zones" of productivity. There is also the nagging problem of peak energy use which occurs after the sun sets. Solar isn't going to save the planet.
In the UK, despite regulations and restrictions, most waste still ends up in Malaysia.
Which then ends up in the Pacific Ocean.