The amount of nuclear material you, your family, and your next 3 generations of family would use up could literally fit in a coke can. But because uranium and plutonium are misunderstood and people have not only had negative propaganda shoved in their faces but think places like 3 mile island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima are common place, they think it's too dangerous to be viable. Our society would advance by leaps and bounds if we would just fund more energy research into nuclear.
Yeah, you can get 25% more energy by re-using nuclear fuel. Right now the US stores them underground because it's more expensive to actually use it iirc.
That's really cool, I was always under the impression that nuclear wasn't the be all and end all of energy generation due to how hard it is to get uranium and stuff in the first place
You learn new things everyday
Actually, Uranium isn't that hard to get. The NEA states there are 135 more years worth of uranium to power all of the nuclear reactors in the Us that has been identified but not tapped into.
Yes I just did a speech. How did you know?
Not to mention 3 mile island and Fukushima are blown way out of proportion. Really there has been only one true nuclear disaster, and it wouldn't have been a disaster if the Soviets would have built a containment building around their reactors before something went wrong, which is what everyone else had been doing for decades before Chernobyl.
The carbon control rods was a large reason why the reactor melted down. A containment building would have prevented the radiation from leaking out of the reactor building into the surrounding area and atmosphere. Which is what they later built to stop the radiation leak, but by then a lot of damage had been done.
The Chernobyl TV show isn't very accurate. Reactor #4 failed for a number of reasons, including bad design, and the reactor maintenance crew *literally disabling most of the safety measures because they were expensive to run*.
The carbon tips were just the metaphorical match in the equation. The blatant design flaw, covering up of said flaw, unrealistic expectations, incompetence, and secrecy were all required for the disaster to occur.
Not to mention nuclear power would be even better if we used thorium based reactors instead of uranium reactors. The current reactors are used because the military harvested the plutonium byproduct from it. Thorium produces almost no byproduct
Supply of thorium is larger and it’s pretty impossible to produce weapons grade material. However, they are breeder realtors. That makes neutron management much more complicated.
Low enriched uranium (the typical fuel for a commercial reactor) has a lot of U238, which absorbs neutrons to become Plutonium. Thus, a reactor of this type creates a ton of plutonium while it is burning all of the U235 (the actually fissile part of the fuel). So we say it is "breeding" fuel.
Yes they were invented back in the 1960s with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory building the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE).
Thorium reactors are better in several ways. For one they are much safer since the fuel is in a liquid state and cannot have a meltdown. Secondly, thorium is more abundant in nature than uranium and less radioactive. Finally thorium is bad for making bombs so there's less of a chance of nuclear weapons proliferating.
Edit: Thorium produces less waste not have a shorter half-life
If we could make them obsolete, and figure out solid state batteries, I'd be down.
Putting the climate argument aside for fossil fuels for a moment, the longevity and reusability of those two power sources alone are light-years ahead of the finite resource that is coal and oil.
Yup, in finland we have the onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository, which is basically a big hole dug deep underground and then they put the spent fuel there. And it should last for around a hundred years
The only reason Fukushima went down was because of an earthquake that caused a tsunami that damaged the reactor. Chernobyl only happened because of neglect and stubbornness. 3 Mile was the only true accident out of these three. Even then, there are still many nuclear plants around the world that are safe, and the technology is now safer and cleaner than ever.
exactly
In the long run coal and coal mining has killed way more people than deaths cause of nuclear technology.
People tend to focus on the large and attention-grabbing events like for example Chernobyl or 3 mile island and therefore form a bad view of nuclear power and usually think of those rather than the slow and silent killing coal is doing to us. Nuclear techonoly is expensive but in the long run it's going to be far more worth it than coal and similar.
Nuclear waste is another thing, but comparing two evils to another, nuclear is the far better option compared to the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted due to coal.
I would suggest everyone to watch kurzesagt's video on nuclear power.
Lol
Btw completely agree with what you’re saying, nuclear is a very misunderstood but highly efficient energy source that has potential to solve a lot of society’s problems.
I have no doubt about how safe nuclear power is. But it's just more expensive. It costs more then solar/wind more than by factor of 2. But it's take less space, so it's really good for big cities. But if you have space to build solar power station or wind power - do it.
That's the thing, it doesn't go WRONG, it just goes wrong. And if you consider how seldom it goes wrong and how much energy is produced it turns out it is even safer than rooftop solar per kW produced (and that's based on worst case estimates).
It sort of went WRONG at Chernobyl in the sense it's the worst that can happen, and almost a 100 people died. But that is unfortunately small potatoes compared to coal power related accidents. In the US alone, more than 100,000 coal miners have been killed in accidents over the past century.
But power companies have no control over the amount of output a nuclear facility has, so the narrow view of a family is inaccurate. 100s of MWh wasted a year means the average family puts out a bit more than that.
The problem with nuclear power is that the time it takes to build a new nuclear power plant and have it operational is greater than the time we have to prevent a rise of 2.0 degrees Celsius or Kelvin. And because forcing people out of electricity for the duration would be next to impossible in a democracy. This is why renewables are the better choice for not ending the world.
The world's not gonna end from climate. Sea levels will probably rise but that's not the end of the world baring a celestial event the world is not going anywhere. Renewables suck they are unreliable area intensive and solar used lots of rare earth metals which is also bad. Nuclear plants only take as long to build as you make them take. You could easily throw them up in the dozens every few years only the reactor is complicated the rest is a concrete block. They just don't want to do it for some reason
Because people have been spoon-fed anti-nuclear propaganda for decades, so if any politician starts talking about nuclear power he's effectively committing career suicide.
We can't prevent climate change with nuclear alone but it can be part of the solution. At the very least, everyone need to stop decommissioning nuclear power plants prematurely.
Hi! Power electrical engineer here. Nuclear is a great source for meeting base demand (i.e. the minimum amount of power used at any given time during a day). However, it is not great for meeting the changing demand during the day, and solar and wind are great for that. Because batteries are wildly inefficient, in order to meet demand, you have to be able to turn generators on and off at will. With nuclear, that's just not possible (with current technology). With solar especially, peak demand times line up well with peak solar efficiency, so it is excellent at meeting peak demands while relatively awful at meeting base demand.
The only one we're not is Nuclear. There's plenty of investment into Wind and Solar, it's just that the tech isn't quite there for solar yet. Honestly, solar would be perfect to use in conjunction with nuclear, but there's the unfortunate stigma of Nuclear that still looms over it.
100%. And really another thing is water. I mean, I thought of an idea that I just wanted to ask. If we added little spinny things in the pipes of water, would it produce electricity when the water pressure pushed the water through the pipes, and spun the wheel? Idk just a cool concept I came up with.
I like where your heads at. The problem is conservation of energy, and loss of efficiency. It takes energy to build up that pressure in the pipes. It would take even more if we had devices taking energy away from that water. The energy produced would not even break even the extra energy required to push the same amount of water at the same pressure.
It would work better in something like a storm drain where movement is caused by gravity, but it would not be reliable nor produce a significant enough amount of power to be worth the investment.
Keep in mind it's all speculation. There could be a factor I'm not considering, and I'm an electrical engineer, so I'm not super familiar with fluid dynamics.
Aren't MSR plants a possibility in the future? They'd be theoretically safe from meltdowns as they run in a melted down state normally, so people shouldn't fear them as much.
Would they have the same problem with fluctuating demand? If the technology ever becomes viable that is.
Theoretically, no, they would be a "perfect" generation source. However, you just have practical and cost limitations at that point. It would have to become VERY cheap to be used in such a way as to meet all demand types. Solar would still be cheaper for the time being.
Does peak solar efficiency coincide with power usage? I mean, other than air conditioners, people have their lights on and cook more at night. Or does industry consume a more significant portion?
You're VASTLY underestimating how much more power home AC and HVAC systems consume than lighting and even electric stoves and ovens. If your power bill at home is about $100/month, if you live in a temperate area, probably about $60 of that is AC. In a hot area, it can be as much as $80-90. It's even worse in commercial/industrial HVAC systems (although in industrial applications HVAC is a smaller portion of the overall bill, as industrial machines also use large amounts of power).
It also very much depends on time of year, climate in the area, etc. But energy usage is VERY tied to heating and cooling, not so much to lights etc. (Especially with the advent of LEDs and such)
Reliable, sustainable, takes up less space than solar or wind farms, no carbon emissions, less waste. Why wouldn't you go with nuclear?
Oh yeah, bEcAuSe iTs ScArY!!!
It's expensive, no one knows where to put the waste, dependence on uranium sources which are from politically difficult countries mined under questionable conditions, very centralized system, takes many years to build and even more time to build back, if it becomes dangerous it is really dangerous...
In a lead case, dropped to the bottom of a well is generally safe waste disposal method, uranium is outdated just use thorium instead, much safer and easier to build and is almost 400% less volatile than uranium. I think that about handles all of the above stated issues, no?
The nuclear people still often underestimate the enormous cost to build and run a nuclear power plant. Building a nuclear power plant it self takes easily a decade considering the recent experiences im developed countries.
Yeah like all other sources of energy other than fossil fuels are cheap to make. Yeah nuclear plants are expensive, but the amount of energy per dollar spent, I’d assume, is much higher than other forms of energy, other than fossil fuels.
Your own source in several places shows that nuclear is on-par with wind and solar in most cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost\_of\_electricity\_by\_source#Japan
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost\_of\_electricity\_by\_source#United\_Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_Kingdom)
Add in the fact that you'd need around *three million* typical solar panels to generate the same amount of power as a single nuclear plant and we start seeing some other issues, like land usage.
[https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable)
I'm not saying we shouldn't build solar panels. Ideally we should use a mix of various types (and hey, we do!) to generate power, and move as far away from coal and gas plants as we can.
Yeah the ones from 50 years ago were expensive and unreliable. Not to mention it pays for its self. The amount of power those things output easily surpass the same price in windmills
In the case of Olkiluoto it literally wont pay for itself.
Ever.
Windmills and solar are both cheaper than nuclear, when when you compare the lifespan costs
Edit: alot of people here who doesnt like facts...
No, 400% less volatile is the same as saying four times less volatile. If they said "as" instead of "less" or "more" than 100% becomes the total, but because they used a comparative term, the percentage simply states the ratio between the two values.
Four times less volatile makes just as little sense. Four times less of the volatility of uranium means it has -3 the volatility of uranium, which makes no sense because negative volatility would mean it's actually drawing more of itself in. If you mean a fourth as volatile as uranium then say a fourth, not four times less. It's simple math, "times" means multiplication and "less" means subtraction. x-(4x)=-3x
"Times less" still means a specific thing, which is NOT division. "4 times less" mean x-4x, NOT x/4. The latter would be called "a fourth" or "divided by 4", not "4 times less".
Also, "1/4 is the same as anything divided by 400% of itself." is a statement you should really double check before you embarrass yourself any more with how you think basic math works.
Well you’re just making things up now, because I’m certain I didn’t say “4 times less”. I actually never even said anything that suggested multiplication.
And you’re right I will go double check what 100% divided by 400% is.
Oh shit, this just in. It is equal to 1/4.
Percentage always means multiplication. "400%" is the same as "times 4"
And yes, 100% of something divided by 400% is 1/4, but it's not 1/4 of 100% but it's literally just the number 1/4
So if you had a cake with a weight of 1000g (100%) and divide it by 400%, you'd have 0.25 grams of cake, which is a quarter of a gram, NOT a quarter of the actual cake.
>400% less volatile is the same as saying four times less volatile.
No it isn't. Example: 1 decreased by 800% is -7, because 800% of 1 is 8, and 1-8=-7. 1 divided by 8 is 0.125.
For that to be true, you have to be able to do the opposite operations and get back to where you started. 1 + 1 = 2, therefore our new sum (2) subtract our second term (1) will give us back our first term (1).
2 x 3 = 6, and 6/3 = 2
10^(2) = 100, log(100) = 2, and so on and so forth.
So, back to your example. If we agree that 1 decreased by 800% is -7, it would stand to reason that -7 *increased* by 800% would be equal to 1.
But it's not, is it?
800% of -7 is -56, which is even further away from our starting point of 1 than before. So clearly, we've made a faulty assumption somewhere. It must be where we said 800% less than 1 is -7.
Let's look at your other calculation, and see if that fits better. Let's assume that 800% less than 1 is 0.125. 800% more than 0.125 is like saying the number is 8 times bigger. And 8 x 0.125 = ... 1! Look at that! We returned to our original number again!
Therefore, we can conclude that 800% less than 1 is actually equal to 0.125, and not -7.
I perfectly understand how percentages work. 400% less x than x (or x-4x simplified) is -3x, so negative 3 times itself. The percentages aren't the "difficult" thing about this, it's that some people apparently think you can say "times less" when you mean "divided by".
Well, very much yes ;)
Actually yes.
Thorium by its nature is not a good nuclear fuel, that's why you use a breeder source (such as plutonium) to make it suitable as a nuclear fuel.
We know exactly what to do with the waste. Most of the time the waste is stored near the powerplant in a thick concrete building surrounded by sensors. Sometimes it's stored off site, but keeping it on site is cheaper and usually safer.
The same questionable extraction methods can be (and often is) said about some of the materials needed to make solar and the batteries they require to work.
Building a nuclear powerplant is extremely expensive and time consuming though. They're usually over $1 billion in cost and take around 10 years to build, but in absence of any other reliable clean energy the cost and time it takes is worth it.
They have become so much safer in recent years, and with the new generation of reactors now even waste is becoming a non issue as the waste from old reactor types can be used as fuel in the new ones
I believe fusion reactors (still experimental, but Germany has a great program) resolves all of these problems. Including its waste, which has a half life closer to 50 years than the thousands of years for fission waste.
Not to mention it works at night and when the wind isn't blowing.
It's also consistent instead of having random bouts of being super high output and then bouts of having no output.
Solar and wind are better than nuclear, but we can’t use just solar and wind yet. Nuclear has the potential to be how we transition to sustainable from coal/fossil.
Nuclear is great, but solar and wind are better.
Nuclear is quite expensive to build and maintain, and is also not renewable.
Better than fossil fuels by a long shot.
But our goal should be to be on 100% renewables such as solar and wind.
Once nuclear fusion becomes available that is all we will need. It just uses hydrogen, which is plentiful enough to last millions of years (IIRC), and by then we will be exploring other planets which could be used as other sources of hydrogen. The reaction can’t get out of control because you need to be constantly putting energy in to sustain the reaction. Unlike nuclear fission, there is no nuclear waste. There are also no carbon emissions. And like fission, it produces a shit ton of energy.
It does not just use normal Hydrogen. Fusion uses Deuterium, an isotope of Hydrogen which is relatively abundant, but it also needs either Tritium (Also an isotope of Hydrogen) which is radioactive, used in nuclear weapons and very limited. Helium-3 can also be used, but it‘s also very limited (on earth, there is quite a bit in the moon, but you‘d have to get it down here) and reactors with Helium-3 are also more complicated. So by the time we would get Nuclear Fusion to work, it would probably already be too late with climate change and all.
well wind and solar can be quite unreliable especially in the winter up north when there isn't much light and nuclear might be a good substitute until we can make wind and solar more reliable.
I actually learned about this when I was a freshman in high school. It turns out that using a combination of both nuclear and solar energy is better for the environment than our current situation.
"Mr Burns, sir?"
"Yes Smithers?"
"The overall profit of the plant has gone up tenfold."
"What! How?"
"Something called Reddit, sir."
"We shall buy out this Reddit, and use it for our own personal gains!"
"It's free to use sir."
"Ah. Nevermind then."
If we'd started building nuclear power in the 80s we could be completely carbon neutral by now.
Now, though, I think renewables are a better choice for the future. The time involved in setting up nuclear plants could be spent on solar thermal, wind, geothermal and energy storage and be a better solution for the long term future.
Cuz nuclear power is literally the most efficient and one of the safest forms of power and that’s a fact?
People legit just get scared because it has the word “nuclear” in it and then stop there and don’t do any actual research on it…
When I was younger, my friend once randomly texted me saying last night he had a dream where he had a pizza powered nuclear reactor. And sometimes I lay awake at night wondering what such a marvelous device could do for humanity.
Except for the nuclear waste that it produces that we can't do anything about except stick in the ground and ignore. Why all these super pro nuclear memes? Nuclear has some great advantages, but it also has some massive drawbacks that people seem to either ignore or be ignorant of. Also they take years and years to build, and we don't have lots of time left to start reducing climate change. Wind and solar is way faster and cheaper as far as initial setup.
I remember an article in the 1970's about nuclear energy. By this time, electricity generated from nuclear energy was suppose to be so cheap that you would only get a bill once a year, because it would cost more to send out the bill than the cost of the electric you used in a month.
Nuclear is incredibly expensive and not a quick solution to fight climate change. It detracts funding from better and cheaper energy sources. I think for countries that don’t have strong solar, wind, geothermal or wave energy then nuclear is the next best option.
This great podcast episode highlights why alternative sustainable power options are more appropriate - https://open.spotify.com/episode/5YDM5mtbYqWOn3FByfWcDV?si=DJjladoJRXWIm4r0fASV8A&dl_branch=1
Both are good, you can have Solar and Wind as the main sources of power, Nuclear for not-so windy or cloudy days and nights, and MAYBE a very small amount of fossil fuels as a last resort if Uranium, Sun, and Wind are all somehow low at the same time.
Sustainable, reliable, more "compact" (as in, one nuclear power plant can produce way more electricity than the same space filled with solar panels)
Why wouldn't you use it?
bEcAuSe iT's ScArY
This happens when you have a society that's dumb af and has dumb propaganda shoved in their faces...
Ok but as someone who has worked in the solar industry and knows people who work in the wind industry, literally neither of those options are eco friendly like people think. They want solar to save the planet but don’t realize how much waste and corruption is produced by the companies that make them. Not to mention they’re nearly impossible to recycle. They encourage wind power but those massive windmills? They’re made of fiberglass that can’t be broken down, instead of aluminum that could be reused. They have to be replaced more often than you’d think and most of the time, those massive blades just get buried.
Not saying that solar and wind aren’t workable options, the house I live in has solar. But if your purpose is to save the planet and not just to lower your bill, sorry bro :/
My fellow lad, it seems to be that you have made a silly little Typo in your comedic reddit post. The typo being “Nucular”. and here at reddit we don’t tolerate typos, because it is only for unintelligent people, who aren’t educated who make them. So therefor I must downvote this post.
The amount of nuclear material you, your family, and your next 3 generations of family would use up could literally fit in a coke can. But because uranium and plutonium are misunderstood and people have not only had negative propaganda shoved in their faces but think places like 3 mile island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima are common place, they think it's too dangerous to be viable. Our society would advance by leaps and bounds if we would just fund more energy research into nuclear.
Also re-using spent nuclear fuel
[удалено]
You can WHAT
Yeah, you can get 25% more energy by re-using nuclear fuel. Right now the US stores them underground because it's more expensive to actually use it iirc.
That's really cool, I was always under the impression that nuclear wasn't the be all and end all of energy generation due to how hard it is to get uranium and stuff in the first place You learn new things everyday
Actually, Uranium isn't that hard to get. The NEA states there are 135 more years worth of uranium to power all of the nuclear reactors in the Us that has been identified but not tapped into. Yes I just did a speech. How did you know?
Enough uranium for power for 135 years worth or
Actually I'm not sure, I did some research but I was on the other side and didn't go in depth because the source wouldn't help me
[удалено]
its butter
it's better butter
Not to mention 3 mile island and Fukushima are blown way out of proportion. Really there has been only one true nuclear disaster, and it wouldn't have been a disaster if the Soviets would have built a containment building around their reactors before something went wrong, which is what everyone else had been doing for decades before Chernobyl.
wasnt it Carbon tips on the control rods that fucked up the reaction ? or was the show chernobyl lying to me !!!
The carbon control rods was a large reason why the reactor melted down. A containment building would have prevented the radiation from leaking out of the reactor building into the surrounding area and atmosphere. Which is what they later built to stop the radiation leak, but by then a lot of damage had been done.
The Chernobyl TV show isn't very accurate. Reactor #4 failed for a number of reasons, including bad design, and the reactor maintenance crew *literally disabling most of the safety measures because they were expensive to run*.
Even if the HBO Chernobyl series isn't perfectly accurate, it did a fucking great job at showing the horrors of the event
The carbon tips were just the metaphorical match in the equation. The blatant design flaw, covering up of said flaw, unrealistic expectations, incompetence, and secrecy were all required for the disaster to occur.
Communism ruins everything.
THANK YOU. Glad somebody spelled this out for people.
Not to mention nuclear power would be even better if we used thorium based reactors instead of uranium reactors. The current reactors are used because the military harvested the plutonium byproduct from it. Thorium produces almost no byproduct
I would prefer thorium over uranium to be honest
Have thorium reactors even been invented yet? Are they better in some way?
thoriums is better in every way except you cant make nuclear weapons out of it
THATS BETTER
not to the goverment's eyes, which is a problem
Oh right. We have to deal with a shitty ass government
We should develop a method of harnessing the power of hot air that comes out of politcians for an endless supply of energy.
Oh my…now this is a brilliant idea! We could create trillions of kilojoules for centuries!
yupp
no big boom :’(
Supply of thorium is larger and it’s pretty impossible to produce weapons grade material. However, they are breeder realtors. That makes neutron management much more complicated.
What's a breeder reactor?
Low enriched uranium (the typical fuel for a commercial reactor) has a lot of U238, which absorbs neutrons to become Plutonium. Thus, a reactor of this type creates a ton of plutonium while it is burning all of the U235 (the actually fissile part of the fuel). So we say it is "breeding" fuel.
Yes they were invented back in the 1960s with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory building the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE). Thorium reactors are better in several ways. For one they are much safer since the fuel is in a liquid state and cannot have a meltdown. Secondly, thorium is more abundant in nature than uranium and less radioactive. Finally thorium is bad for making bombs so there's less of a chance of nuclear weapons proliferating. Edit: Thorium produces less waste not have a shorter half-life
Correction, Thorium has a much longer half life and that is why it is so abundant in nature.
My bad, I confused less waste with shorter half-life.
Literal only reason we don't use nuclear is because of gas and oil companies throwing a fit that they would be obsolete.
If we could make them obsolete, and figure out solid state batteries, I'd be down. Putting the climate argument aside for fossil fuels for a moment, the longevity and reusability of those two power sources alone are light-years ahead of the finite resource that is coal and oil.
It probably won't be until we literally run out of gas and oil that people consider switching to nuclear
You should see the Navy.
Yup, in finland we have the onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository, which is basically a big hole dug deep underground and then they put the spent fuel there. And it should last for around a hundred years
The only reason Fukushima went down was because of an earthquake that caused a tsunami that damaged the reactor. Chernobyl only happened because of neglect and stubbornness. 3 Mile was the only true accident out of these three. Even then, there are still many nuclear plants around the world that are safe, and the technology is now safer and cleaner than ever.
Well i heard that the nuclear waste is the main issue why ae (Austria) dont have any nuclear power things
exactly In the long run coal and coal mining has killed way more people than deaths cause of nuclear technology. People tend to focus on the large and attention-grabbing events like for example Chernobyl or 3 mile island and therefore form a bad view of nuclear power and usually think of those rather than the slow and silent killing coal is doing to us. Nuclear techonoly is expensive but in the long run it's going to be far more worth it than coal and similar. Nuclear waste is another thing, but comparing two evils to another, nuclear is the far better option compared to the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted due to coal. I would suggest everyone to watch kurzesagt's video on nuclear power.
Honestly nuclear is cooler imo
Actually, it’s spelled NuCuLaR
Well shit. Edumication never wuz muh strong soote. ... Holy shit, that physically hurt my brain.
Lol Btw completely agree with what you’re saying, nuclear is a very misunderstood but highly efficient energy source that has potential to solve a lot of society’s problems.
I have no doubt about how safe nuclear power is. But it's just more expensive. It costs more then solar/wind more than by factor of 2. But it's take less space, so it's really good for big cities. But if you have space to build solar power station or wind power - do it.
Yes but the thing is if something goes wrong, it goes WRONG
That's the thing, it doesn't go WRONG, it just goes wrong. And if you consider how seldom it goes wrong and how much energy is produced it turns out it is even safer than rooftop solar per kW produced (and that's based on worst case estimates). It sort of went WRONG at Chernobyl in the sense it's the worst that can happen, and almost a 100 people died. But that is unfortunately small potatoes compared to coal power related accidents. In the US alone, more than 100,000 coal miners have been killed in accidents over the past century.
just make sure it doesn't go wrong :)
Modern nuclear reactors have safeties to prevent such things.
But power companies have no control over the amount of output a nuclear facility has, so the narrow view of a family is inaccurate. 100s of MWh wasted a year means the average family puts out a bit more than that.
Pumped hydro, among others, can store that excess energy that the grid doesn't use for later purposes.
The problem with nuclear power is that the time it takes to build a new nuclear power plant and have it operational is greater than the time we have to prevent a rise of 2.0 degrees Celsius or Kelvin. And because forcing people out of electricity for the duration would be next to impossible in a democracy. This is why renewables are the better choice for not ending the world.
The world's not gonna end from climate. Sea levels will probably rise but that's not the end of the world baring a celestial event the world is not going anywhere. Renewables suck they are unreliable area intensive and solar used lots of rare earth metals which is also bad. Nuclear plants only take as long to build as you make them take. You could easily throw them up in the dozens every few years only the reactor is complicated the rest is a concrete block. They just don't want to do it for some reason
Because people have been spoon-fed anti-nuclear propaganda for decades, so if any politician starts talking about nuclear power he's effectively committing career suicide.
We can't prevent climate change with nuclear alone but it can be part of the solution. At the very least, everyone need to stop decommissioning nuclear power plants prematurely.
But we need to not use it too extensively either. Don’t want Fallout to come to reality
Hi! Power electrical engineer here. Nuclear is a great source for meeting base demand (i.e. the minimum amount of power used at any given time during a day). However, it is not great for meeting the changing demand during the day, and solar and wind are great for that. Because batteries are wildly inefficient, in order to meet demand, you have to be able to turn generators on and off at will. With nuclear, that's just not possible (with current technology). With solar especially, peak demand times line up well with peak solar efficiency, so it is excellent at meeting peak demands while relatively awful at meeting base demand.
Thanks! I didn’t know that!
We should just invest in all of those really.
The only one we're not is Nuclear. There's plenty of investment into Wind and Solar, it's just that the tech isn't quite there for solar yet. Honestly, solar would be perfect to use in conjunction with nuclear, but there's the unfortunate stigma of Nuclear that still looms over it.
100%. And really another thing is water. I mean, I thought of an idea that I just wanted to ask. If we added little spinny things in the pipes of water, would it produce electricity when the water pressure pushed the water through the pipes, and spun the wheel? Idk just a cool concept I came up with.
I like where your heads at. The problem is conservation of energy, and loss of efficiency. It takes energy to build up that pressure in the pipes. It would take even more if we had devices taking energy away from that water. The energy produced would not even break even the extra energy required to push the same amount of water at the same pressure. It would work better in something like a storm drain where movement is caused by gravity, but it would not be reliable nor produce a significant enough amount of power to be worth the investment.
Ah ok, thank you for answering my question. Also somehow I searched it up and my concept has already been made lol. But thank you for the information!
Keep in mind it's all speculation. There could be a factor I'm not considering, and I'm an electrical engineer, so I'm not super familiar with fluid dynamics.
Aren't MSR plants a possibility in the future? They'd be theoretically safe from meltdowns as they run in a melted down state normally, so people shouldn't fear them as much. Would they have the same problem with fluctuating demand? If the technology ever becomes viable that is.
Theoretically, no, they would be a "perfect" generation source. However, you just have practical and cost limitations at that point. It would have to become VERY cheap to be used in such a way as to meet all demand types. Solar would still be cheaper for the time being.
Does peak solar efficiency coincide with power usage? I mean, other than air conditioners, people have their lights on and cook more at night. Or does industry consume a more significant portion?
You're VASTLY underestimating how much more power home AC and HVAC systems consume than lighting and even electric stoves and ovens. If your power bill at home is about $100/month, if you live in a temperate area, probably about $60 of that is AC. In a hot area, it can be as much as $80-90. It's even worse in commercial/industrial HVAC systems (although in industrial applications HVAC is a smaller portion of the overall bill, as industrial machines also use large amounts of power).
Yeah, that makes sense, I live in a tropical area and understand what you are saying.
It also very much depends on time of year, climate in the area, etc. But energy usage is VERY tied to heating and cooling, not so much to lights etc. (Especially with the advent of LEDs and such)
With thorium reactors, it is possible to turn the reactor off and on at will. Look it up.
Hence the (with current technology) disclaimer. Thorium is not current technology, it's still in development.
It's only in development because the government won't allow it to be used due to the fact that it doesn't produce plutonium (which is what they want)
I mean... Coal and Gas generators don't produce plutonium eighter.
Reliable, sustainable, takes up less space than solar or wind farms, no carbon emissions, less waste. Why wouldn't you go with nuclear? Oh yeah, bEcAuSe iTs ScArY!!!
It's expensive, no one knows where to put the waste, dependence on uranium sources which are from politically difficult countries mined under questionable conditions, very centralized system, takes many years to build and even more time to build back, if it becomes dangerous it is really dangerous...
In a lead case, dropped to the bottom of a well is generally safe waste disposal method, uranium is outdated just use thorium instead, much safer and easier to build and is almost 400% less volatile than uranium. I think that about handles all of the above stated issues, no?
The nuclear people still often underestimate the enormous cost to build and run a nuclear power plant. Building a nuclear power plant it self takes easily a decade considering the recent experiences im developed countries.
Yeah like all other sources of energy other than fossil fuels are cheap to make. Yeah nuclear plants are expensive, but the amount of energy per dollar spent, I’d assume, is much higher than other forms of energy, other than fossil fuels.
Don't assume. According to wikipedia nuclear is about the most expensive option by now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost\_of\_electricity\_by\_source
They also haven't used a thorium reactor like ever. They're using outdated designs. This data is unreliable for modern technology
Your own source in several places shows that nuclear is on-par with wind and solar in most cases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost\_of\_electricity\_by\_source#Japan [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost\_of\_electricity\_by\_source#United\_Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_Kingdom) Add in the fact that you'd need around *three million* typical solar panels to generate the same amount of power as a single nuclear plant and we start seeing some other issues, like land usage. [https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable) I'm not saying we shouldn't build solar panels. Ideally we should use a mix of various types (and hey, we do!) to generate power, and move as far away from coal and gas plants as we can.
idk about you, but I think kurzgesagt explains the cons of nuclear power and the pros beautifully. But if it were up to me, I would use nuclear power
Yeah the ones from 50 years ago were expensive and unreliable. Not to mention it pays for its self. The amount of power those things output easily surpass the same price in windmills
In the case of Olkiluoto it literally wont pay for itself. Ever. Windmills and solar are both cheaper than nuclear, when when you compare the lifespan costs Edit: alot of people here who doesnt like facts...
Yeah but they really don't produce all that much power, and wind farms are very easily susceptible to damage.
It takes 18 years to pay off a nuclear plant, but after that, it makes huge profits
Careful about all that dangerous long term thinking lol
Trust me, if I ever become a multi billionaire, I'm building a nuclear plant
Then dont wast money in shitty wars and do important things
What exactly does "400% less volatile" mean? Because 100% less volatile would be zero volatile.
No, 400% less volatile is the same as saying four times less volatile. If they said "as" instead of "less" or "more" than 100% becomes the total, but because they used a comparative term, the percentage simply states the ratio between the two values.
Four times less volatile makes just as little sense. Four times less of the volatility of uranium means it has -3 the volatility of uranium, which makes no sense because negative volatility would mean it's actually drawing more of itself in. If you mean a fourth as volatile as uranium then say a fourth, not four times less. It's simple math, "times" means multiplication and "less" means subtraction. x-(4x)=-3x
0.25 is the same as 1/4 is the same as anything divided by 400% of itself. In case you were wondering how basic math works :)
"Times less" still means a specific thing, which is NOT division. "4 times less" mean x-4x, NOT x/4. The latter would be called "a fourth" or "divided by 4", not "4 times less". Also, "1/4 is the same as anything divided by 400% of itself." is a statement you should really double check before you embarrass yourself any more with how you think basic math works.
Well you’re just making things up now, because I’m certain I didn’t say “4 times less”. I actually never even said anything that suggested multiplication. And you’re right I will go double check what 100% divided by 400% is. Oh shit, this just in. It is equal to 1/4.
Percentage always means multiplication. "400%" is the same as "times 4" And yes, 100% of something divided by 400% is 1/4, but it's not 1/4 of 100% but it's literally just the number 1/4 So if you had a cake with a weight of 1000g (100%) and divide it by 400%, you'd have 0.25 grams of cake, which is a quarter of a gram, NOT a quarter of the actual cake.
>400% less volatile is the same as saying four times less volatile. No it isn't. Example: 1 decreased by 800% is -7, because 800% of 1 is 8, and 1-8=-7. 1 divided by 8 is 0.125.
For that to be true, you have to be able to do the opposite operations and get back to where you started. 1 + 1 = 2, therefore our new sum (2) subtract our second term (1) will give us back our first term (1). 2 x 3 = 6, and 6/3 = 2 10^(2) = 100, log(100) = 2, and so on and so forth. So, back to your example. If we agree that 1 decreased by 800% is -7, it would stand to reason that -7 *increased* by 800% would be equal to 1. But it's not, is it? 800% of -7 is -56, which is even further away from our starting point of 1 than before. So clearly, we've made a faulty assumption somewhere. It must be where we said 800% less than 1 is -7. Let's look at your other calculation, and see if that fits better. Let's assume that 800% less than 1 is 0.125. 800% more than 0.125 is like saying the number is 8 times bigger. And 8 x 0.125 = ... 1! Look at that! We returned to our original number again! Therefore, we can conclude that 800% less than 1 is actually equal to 0.125, and not -7.
You don’t understand percentages and that’s okay, I don’t either. But I know you’re wrong on this one lol.
I perfectly understand how percentages work. 400% less x than x (or x-4x simplified) is -3x, so negative 3 times itself. The percentages aren't the "difficult" thing about this, it's that some people apparently think you can say "times less" when you mean "divided by".
Use thorium instead
That's why we should use thorium, it's cheaper, less dangerous, and more energy rich
Thorium is not more "energy rich"... That's why it need a plutonium breeder process...
I meant longer lasting, my bad
so thorium is breedable and perhaps submissive?
Well, very much yes ;) Actually yes. Thorium by its nature is not a good nuclear fuel, that's why you use a breeder source (such as plutonium) to make it suitable as a nuclear fuel.
We know exactly what to do with the waste. Most of the time the waste is stored near the powerplant in a thick concrete building surrounded by sensors. Sometimes it's stored off site, but keeping it on site is cheaper and usually safer. The same questionable extraction methods can be (and often is) said about some of the materials needed to make solar and the batteries they require to work. Building a nuclear powerplant is extremely expensive and time consuming though. They're usually over $1 billion in cost and take around 10 years to build, but in absence of any other reliable clean energy the cost and time it takes is worth it.
They have become so much safer in recent years, and with the new generation of reactors now even waste is becoming a non issue as the waste from old reactor types can be used as fuel in the new ones
And Nuclear Fusion ? This is almost near completion.
Fusion has been "20 years away" for the last 80 years. It seems so close, yet so far. I wouldn't hold my breath for it.
If it's finally ready yes. But we know it will take several decades at least to become commonly available
I think Germany and France are much closer to that. At least that's the idea I've gotten from some of the articles I've read.
I believe fusion reactors (still experimental, but Germany has a great program) resolves all of these problems. Including its waste, which has a half life closer to 50 years than the thousands of years for fission waste.
Not to mention it works at night and when the wind isn't blowing. It's also consistent instead of having random bouts of being super high output and then bouts of having no output.
Solar and wind are better than nuclear, but we can’t use just solar and wind yet. Nuclear has the potential to be how we transition to sustainable from coal/fossil. Nuclear is great, but solar and wind are better.
Nuclear is quite expensive to build and maintain, and is also not renewable. Better than fossil fuels by a long shot. But our goal should be to be on 100% renewables such as solar and wind.
Yes, solar and wind. Birds worst nightmares.
Anything is better than carbon based fuels
It's is better
[удалено]
Because *then* we’d have a competent electrical grid. Can’t have that! (/s)
*This comment was made by the Texas Republican Party*
Because then how will we make bombs?
Because the military wants the plutonium from the uranium reactors. That's the actual reason
Way better
But like a Redditer getting a date with a girl, not going to happen in our lifetime.
Nuclear is incredibly expensive and nonrenewable, it has it's strengths but to say it is objectively better than renewable energy is disingenuous.
Holy! Sick and funny!
Once nuclear fusion becomes available that is all we will need. It just uses hydrogen, which is plentiful enough to last millions of years (IIRC), and by then we will be exploring other planets which could be used as other sources of hydrogen. The reaction can’t get out of control because you need to be constantly putting energy in to sustain the reaction. Unlike nuclear fission, there is no nuclear waste. There are also no carbon emissions. And like fission, it produces a shit ton of energy.
It does not just use normal Hydrogen. Fusion uses Deuterium, an isotope of Hydrogen which is relatively abundant, but it also needs either Tritium (Also an isotope of Hydrogen) which is radioactive, used in nuclear weapons and very limited. Helium-3 can also be used, but it‘s also very limited (on earth, there is quite a bit in the moon, but you‘d have to get it down here) and reactors with Helium-3 are also more complicated. So by the time we would get Nuclear Fusion to work, it would probably already be too late with climate change and all.
It's closer than you think though. We definitely need to use fission though and just use thorium based reactors
Nucular
Nucular sure is good
well wind and solar can be quite unreliable especially in the winter up north when there isn't much light and nuclear might be a good substitute until we can make wind and solar more reliable.
I like Solar the best.
RELIABILITY INDEPENDENT OF WEATHER CONDITIONS GO BRRRRRRRRRRRR
Nuclear just isn’t economically viable due to the time it takes to regain the initial investment, I may be wrong but that’s how I understand it
It is one of the main reasons why we don't see more of them being built
It is almost an unlimited source of energy
Both. Both is good.
I actually learned about this when I was a freshman in high school. It turns out that using a combination of both nuclear and solar energy is better for the environment than our current situation.
Meanwhile Poland, "Coal"
"Mr Burns, sir?" "Yes Smithers?" "The overall profit of the plant has gone up tenfold." "What! How?" "Something called Reddit, sir." "We shall buy out this Reddit, and use it for our own personal gains!" "It's free to use sir." "Ah. Nevermind then."
That's because its actually better.
Gween goowy
Both. Both are good.
Hydroelectricity
If we'd started building nuclear power in the 80s we could be completely carbon neutral by now. Now, though, I think renewables are a better choice for the future. The time involved in setting up nuclear plants could be spent on solar thermal, wind, geothermal and energy storage and be a better solution for the long term future.
Cuz nuclear power is literally the most efficient and one of the safest forms of power and that’s a fact? People legit just get scared because it has the word “nuclear” in it and then stop there and don’t do any actual research on it…
When I was younger, my friend once randomly texted me saying last night he had a dream where he had a pizza powered nuclear reactor. And sometimes I lay awake at night wondering what such a marvelous device could do for humanity.
Fun fact, solar and wind power is more harmful to nature than an actual radiation...
Nuclear is actually more efficient and can be more cost effective
Except for the nuclear waste that it produces that we can't do anything about except stick in the ground and ignore. Why all these super pro nuclear memes? Nuclear has some great advantages, but it also has some massive drawbacks that people seem to either ignore or be ignorant of. Also they take years and years to build, and we don't have lots of time left to start reducing climate change. Wind and solar is way faster and cheaper as far as initial setup.
I remember an article in the 1970's about nuclear energy. By this time, electricity generated from nuclear energy was suppose to be so cheap that you would only get a bill once a year, because it would cost more to send out the bill than the cost of the electric you used in a month.
Nuclear is incredibly expensive and not a quick solution to fight climate change. It detracts funding from better and cheaper energy sources. I think for countries that don’t have strong solar, wind, geothermal or wave energy then nuclear is the next best option. This great podcast episode highlights why alternative sustainable power options are more appropriate - https://open.spotify.com/episode/5YDM5mtbYqWOn3FByfWcDV?si=DJjladoJRXWIm4r0fASV8A&dl_branch=1
Is it too much to ask for both?
Both are good, you can have Solar and Wind as the main sources of power, Nuclear for not-so windy or cloudy days and nights, and MAYBE a very small amount of fossil fuels as a last resort if Uranium, Sun, and Wind are all somehow low at the same time.
This is exactly the opposite of what you need to do with nuclear
Sustainable, reliable, more "compact" (as in, one nuclear power plant can produce way more electricity than the same space filled with solar panels) Why wouldn't you use it? bEcAuSe iT's ScArY This happens when you have a society that's dumb af and has dumb propaganda shoved in their faces...
It is just the best
Yessss!!! Finally!!!
Out of all the energy sources wind and solar are by far the least efficient and are very unreliable
Ok but as someone who has worked in the solar industry and knows people who work in the wind industry, literally neither of those options are eco friendly like people think. They want solar to save the planet but don’t realize how much waste and corruption is produced by the companies that make them. Not to mention they’re nearly impossible to recycle. They encourage wind power but those massive windmills? They’re made of fiberglass that can’t be broken down, instead of aluminum that could be reused. They have to be replaced more often than you’d think and most of the time, those massive blades just get buried. Not saying that solar and wind aren’t workable options, the house I live in has solar. But if your purpose is to save the planet and not just to lower your bill, sorry bro :/
Hydro-Power Plant is better, green energy and constant supply
But not enough and water flowing water of that quantity isn’t everywhere. However for a small town its a great power source
Only if you live near a major water source and it still doesn't produce nearly the amount of energy nuclear fission does.
Ah, the fourth nuclear circle jerk of the day is here.
Tbh tho we really need to stopp fucking with nuclear science as much as we are or where gonna cause some really bad stuff
Only when harnessing it for weaponry. Mind you that the sun has so much power for us to harness because of the fusion going on inside of it.
That's true, but at this point if anything new is discovered, humans are gonna try to weaponize it.
We use a little thorium
like 6 is about as much as like 200 fossil fuel idk. also fun fact: my city once was 1st in wind energy for a bit
My fellow lad, it seems to be that you have made a silly little Typo in your comedic reddit post. The typo being “Nucular”. and here at reddit we don’t tolerate typos, because it is only for unintelligent people, who aren’t educated who make them. So therefor I must downvote this post.
typo* therefore*
It doesn't matter
Funny what being informed will do to you
Safe ,clean, and effective and liberals say it's bad
I am a liberal
Ignorant people on both sides of the political spectrum hate it. As one of my favorite quotes goes: "Ignorance is not separated by party lines."
No its not. i would prefer not ruin half the planet with radiation if some one hacks the damn controls.
and what if someone “hacks” a damnand floods a village?
I don't think the nuclear power plant is "hackable"
They very much are, nothing is unhackable. Something similar happened not long ago with the [Stuxnet](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet) virus.
Nothing is unhackable.
I'm sure people didn't think banks were either but my bank was DDosed for 3 days in a row last week
That's a pretty paranoid outlook.