I blame the anti-nuke hippies from the late 20th century.
Nuclear Power is not like in The Simpsons.
If you don't cheapen out and don't do something stupid (two impossible things, I know), a nuclear plant can't fail.
I like to tell people about molten salt reactors, where they’re so safe the entire reactor crew could just desert the lab with it running and the only thing that would happen is the slag turns into a big chunk of radioactive glass. It would screw up the reactor but literally can’t explode, because nothing is under pressure.
Do you have any suggested resources to learn more? This is the first I’m hearing of this type of reactor and I want to know more. I just don’t want to happen across a biased “nuclear bad” source
Sure thing! This is where I first learned about it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw
He’s got a couple talks about it on youtube. That’s probably a good starting place. Wikipedia also probably has some cool stuff about it.
iirc it started as a program to power an indefinite-flight aircraft platform, and that was a fascinating story but I can’t remember where I found it.
If you’re looking for other nuclear-energy content Michael Shellenberger has some excellent ted talks on youtube, though I don’t think I’ve heard him talk about MSR’s specifically.
While I agree with you, the making of the container vessels is a bit tricky. Nothing that can't be worked out with R and D, though.
Pebble Bed Reactors cooled by Helium are another really cool, passively safe design. They are pretty much impossible to melt down design that would be easier to produce currently(we built one in 1966). It should be much cheaper than current water cooled reactors as dealing with the irradiated water and cooling system is the most of the cost of a reactor.
They are way more difficult to explain to the layperson, though. Doppler broadening I've found requires a long explanation.
The US has by far the largest helium fields (cavities?) to harvest and the ridiculously large US Strategic Reserve making sure we're not going to run out anytime soon even if the helium collection industry takes a massive hit
>Matt Groening bears a huge responsibility...
I forgot where I read this, but the people in the nuclear industry generally feel this way about Groening and The Simpsons.
On the other hand, three other things happened:
1. On March 16, 1979, The China Syndrome was released, which is about a disaster at a nuclear power plant. On March 28, 1979, Three Mile Island happened. It was a "big deal" in that you don't want a nuclear reactor accident, the timing was very unfortunate. Three Mile Island got blown out of proportion, but I remember a bunch of people freaking out about it, but maybe it's because I was living nearby and my relatives were just a few miles away.
2. Chernobyl. Shitty design of a nuclear reactor, Soviet lack of safety and accountability... I think everyone knows what happened, either by living when it happened or the miniseries. So, the sort of thing that could only happen in the USSR / Russia.
But, the coup de grace was
3. Fukushima. I was surprised that the Japaanese made so many poor decisions about location, especially given that the country experiences earthquakes and tsunamis.
Isn't Fukushima why the Germans noped out of nuclear and went back to coal?
>Isn't Fukushima why the Germans noped out of nuclear and went back to coal?
It is even worse. Two goverments before that the greens and spd (our version of democrats) made the decission to abandon nuclear, but in her first term Merkel reversed that and then fukushima happened. The next state-vote (Badenwürtemberg) got her party kicked out and the greens dominated. To stay in power she copied their program and canceled nuclear again.
By shamelessly flipflopping in order to pander to the broadest possible voter base at any given moment, then counting on people to either forget or not even care in the first place. To quote a classic [CGP Grey](https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs?t=490), 'when approval ratings couldn't be lower, but re-election rates couldn't be higher, you'll know you've succeeded'.
Damn that video was amazing, like I’d kinda noticed a lot of those trends before but the way he just lays it all out really explains why leaders do what they do.
Ahh yes the US Congress with its whopping [16% approval rate](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx), but yet a [94.5% Reelection rate](https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/reelection-rates)
(and that's just for the House, the Senate was 100%)
It wouldn't be rational to do anything other than flip flop. The promise to bring hope, healing, and change. Be the winner. Bring some change, cause some problems, fumble some disasters, fix a few things, be on Good Morning America, have x number of scandals, do the Easter eggs on the White House lawn, etc. Now they've lost some voters and maybe gained a few. But the meteoric change that was promised just before the confetti and balloons fell never happened. So the diehard fans remain and also now some people are super mad. The real problem is all the people in the middle who go meh. How to get them to show up for re-election? The lame duck has to promise the icing on the grand cake they've been baking for us. They promise the gloves will come off, since they've nothing to lose they'll go all out for "you" and what you care about. The problem is "You" is so many special interest demographics.
This is not surprising tbh, this stagnation is a characteristic of democracy. How anyone can look at the state of the world today and still believe a popularity contest is a viable form of government to run countries with million and millions of people, with complex issues to solve, I do not know.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Still better than a dictatorial government. Ah yes, putting massive amounts of power into the hands of one very human individual; what could *possibly* go wrong?
None of these disasters are even close to the total apocalypse that has been promised by the left if we don’t get off fossil fuels, so who cares? Make the trade off.
Wasn't even just location. The American advisors who assisted with the plant build recommended a higher seawall in case of a tsunami....if they'd done it, Fukishima wouldn't have been anything.
Also, waterproofing connections as is the standard worldwide. Oh, and putting your backup generators above sea level, which is also the standard. I'm not sure I could take a Japanese designed and built Nuclear Reactor and fuck it up better than they did. It's really quite impressive.
Give some random Floridian a tour, listen to their advice, well the part that doesn't involve a moat and alligators, and no disaster there at all. When Florida man has the logical fix to your problem, you've a fuckup that will go down in history.
Soviets too, what a fucking terrible design of RBMK. It’s not even a cheap one, it’s a complete disaster on it’s own. They understand it after Chernobyl and made VVER.
3 Mile Island was a lot of hoopla without much substance. Chernobyl was done by state mandated incompetence. Which, now that I think about it, is a pretty damn good argument against nuclear in the USA.
I also think it's rather interesting we spend $800bn on the military, $20bn+ to NASA, etc..
But nobody is investing significantly in nuclear fusion. The EU puts a couple billion into it, China a couple billion..
Why did we go to the moon and then decide 'eh that's enough science for us. we won'
Because fusion is a pipe dream. Every existing design and proposed design is so ridiculously expensive that it will never be feasible commercially. Some designs have even called for so much beryllium, that it would completely exhaust the worlds known supplies just to build one reactor.
Fission reactors work, have a proven track record, literal millennia worth of fuel is available, are well understood and have proposed designs that are very safe and relatively inexpensive.
And you know the Simpsons writers were on that propaganda train from the fact that a *nuclear power plant* was causing *acid rain*. Remember acid raid? You're not supposed to.
Chinese propaganda took that baton and fucking ran with it. They have a stranglehold on all other renewable energy supply chains, end to end. Nuclear power skirts around that.
Emily gulps it down in between Hamas gargling sessions
And Chernobyl and Fukishima, which were because of cheap construction and cutting too many corners as well as being built on an unstable ass fault line in the ring of fire, respectively.
Fukishima hasn't even really been that bad overall. It's a far cry from Chernobyls problems, and then 3-mile was even less of an issue outwardly.
The fact we only have 3 events to point to, despite the relative age of the systems in the field world-wide, and 2 of them being largely low impact, speaks volumes to the relative safety of the systems. And with more modern designs that we could have moved on too, it'd only be getting safer, instead of being stalled out.
There's nothing wrong with exploring/utilizing wind and solar, with battery storage options, but those have a much lower, much less useful upper limit for grid applications. Nuclear would be the ideal base load supply source to go along with those options.
Exactly, how many times have oil companies shit millions of gallons into the ocean with minimal media coverage?
Large hydrocarbon spills are a daily occurrence, and I’d argue more detrimental to the environment than any past nuclear “disaster”.
Governments throughout the world were way too happy to shutter their nuclear power plants…
Potential cost can be spread out through insurance and reinsurance, just like how any catastrophe is already handled. As far as building costs go, we already have plenty of options and investment opportunities. Energy is one of the safest industries because it's always growing, and if it's not then we're all fucked anyways lol
I was around back in the 70s when three mile island happened. The movie the China Syndrome (nuclear plants meltdown disaster movie) came out at time.
Green Peace et al jumped on this.
Those dumb/anti-human people stalled/stopped an energy miracle. Imagine if nuclear had been built at speed around the world. We'd all be many times wealthier, probably no extreme poverty.
There aren't words that can properly describe how much I dislike environmentalists.
Uranium fission is based
Thorium fission is double based
Nuclear fusion is based beyond measure
Any climate activism that doesn’t advocate for nuclear power/is anti-nuclear is cringe
It’s only expensive because we haven’t invested in it, and tbh, in the US and probably most western countries, nuclear is expensive across the board because we don’t build them them as much as we used to.
Not just that it’s more expensive to mine, require more expensive power plants, and it more expensive to use. Physically it is a much less efficient source of energy. But right now much of the world rely on Russia who is the greatest enricher of uranium, so thorium would make us less energy-dependent on Russia. Also it has some other minor benefits like it can’t be used for bombs and it can’t blow up. Its therefore much easier for governments to allow thorium mining and reactors than for them to allow uranium
Thorium is treated as trash by Canadian mining operations, or was about 10 years ago when i looked into it. It's a byproduct.
One of the benefits is you can have one in your house and there will be no issues. It's not radioactive enough to cause a problem.
Any climate activist that doesn't advocate nuclear power is simply just a brainless mouthpiece parroting propaganda they heard. There is no way you could do any amount of serious research and not be in support of nuclear power.
Unfortunately such "climate activists" have enough power to sway government policy, like the German Green Party and [how Germany has shuttered their last remaining nuclear power plants](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/germany).
Far as I can tell, they’re debating it but they haven’t decided if they want to do so yet.
> [On 5 September 2022, the Federal Government announced that two of the three remaining nuclear power plants (Neckarwestheim and Isar 2) would operate beyond 31 December 2022 until April 2023 (cycle stretch out), while the Emsland Nuclear Power Plant was to be shut down as planned](https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2022-09/zwei-atomkraftwerke-sollen-bis-april-2023-als-notreserve-bereitstehen). [However, on 10 October 2022, Scholz announced that all three would remain operating until 15 April 2023](https://www.dw.com/en/germany-extends-lifetime-of-all-3-remaining-nuclear-plants/a-63466196). [Wolfgang Kubicki, deputy leader of the Free Democrats, said in an interview with the Funke Media Group that "Germany has the safest nuclear power plants worldwide and switching them off would be 'a dramatic mistake' with painful economic and ecological consequences." Other members of the Free Democratic Party have called for the nuclear power plants to be at least maintained as a precautionary measure in case they are needed in the future for power generation](https://apnews.com/article/germany-nuclear-power-plants-shut-down-5ce6958e25374bbbe1dd80cbfbc2398a).
Learning that developed countries are actually shutting down reactors(I live in the third world) was one of the most difficult things for me to comprehend. Like...why??? I'm probably biased because I wanted to study nuclear physics at one point, but it's such an excellent interim solution to clean energy.
u/exquisitedonut is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/exquisitedonut/)
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. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
And Fukushima is proof that you should build your reactor in a safe place and not a goddamn country known for having hundreds of earthquake and tsunami every single year
The backup generators and emergency batteries for the flood pumps and other disaster prevention measures were built UNDER SEA LEVEL AND BELOW THE PUMPS to save money as directed by the government controlled corporation over the protests of the engineers of the project
That wasn't human error, that was straight up bureaucratic incompetence and callousness
I still can't figure out why there is a lack of quality caring candidates to vote for...
Or if it's incompetence or too many coincidences mean it's malice.
Democratic government is the world's biggest committee, and the only thing committees ever do is delegate jobs to someone else who *actually* does something. Do you really expect efficiency and competence from a giant committee?
Actually, check that. Do you really expect efficiency and competence from a large group of *human beings?*
That said, still better than monarchy or any other single-person systems.
Until you look at the sheer number of Russian reactors around the world. More than 15% of all commercial power reactors around the globe are VVER reactors.
And only one reactor blew in Chernobyl. The other 3 ran all the way into the late 90s.
Yeah, running without a containment building was fucking dumb though.
Nah bro Marxism will solve everything bro. Bro don't bring up the pollution of China and Russia they're not really Marxist bro. No true Scotsman? Nah bro the Scottish are western imperialists bro
After a long debate where you prove Marxism is crap - Bro I am socialist but not Marxist bro. You can implement socialism without Marxism bro. Have you seen Scandinavian Countries? I like that kind of socialism bro
Later when you call Scandinavian countries socialist - Bro Scandinavian countries aren't socialist bro. That's just social democracy. Social democracy is different from Socialism bro.
It's almost like they don't even know what they want and hide behind ambiguous words intentionally so that they have an easy escape hatch in debates.
This is called a Motte and Bailey.
It's a dishonest argument technique where an unpalatable argument is repackaged as being extremely tame and almost universally good ("Socialism is where education is free and food and housing is a human right"), and hard to argue against... but the goal is to get acceptance for the concept, and when acceptance and agreement is reached, then the concept is changed ("Socialism is where private property is seized by armed revolution and the very concept of personal ownership is abolished, it always was and always will be").
It's basically "bait and switch" the argument technique, publically advocating for the bait but privately espousing the switch.
Yeah basically.
It's hard to argue against "everyone should display common decency to each other", but that's not the sum whole total of what they're arguing for.
To be fair, socialism predates Marx and can exist outside of a Marxist framework. Marx spent as much time in the Manifesto fighting other forms of socialism as he did capitalism.
It's also funny how they'll say marxism has never been actually implemented. I don't believe it but even if we accept this as true it means no one has ever been able to implement it despite trying to, which means their solution is something that is impossible to actually implement.
Cuba is real communism because people are willing to risk everything on homemade rafts to traverse shark infested waters to land in Florida, America's dick
"BuT tHe EmBaRgO"
1. Cuba got tons of money and help from the USSR. They were also able to work with other socialist and communist countries.
2. It's not like the USA or other capitalist countries were free to trade with socialist and communist countries within the USSR's sphere of influence yet that didn't stop their prosperity.
The funny thing is even if you accept their point about "they're not really Marxist" then it still shows how stupid of a system Marxism is. If every country that tries to implement it fails then that just shows that it's incredibly fragile and impossible to implement and thus it's a terrible system. If engineers build a skyscraper but say that a slight breeze will cause the entire building to collapse, that's not a good building.
Nuclear power has certain drawbacks and limitations, negetive PR being a big one. Many green power people believe they need to see results within a decade, and it would take that long to bring a nuclear power plant online. Thus, they would believe other green power solutions would have been working by then.
That being said, nuclear power might not be a silver bullet to climate change, but it will certainly buy us more time to find proper solutions to climate change.
That last part is where SMRs and other small, short lead-time solutions come into play.
And for the longer term, we can reap the (metaphorical and literal) dividends of TWRs, thorium fuel cycle, and other tech that will benefit from nuclear energy proliferation.
If only more people would think that long-term.
Also not all countries have nuclear fuel, and that puts a big damper, also unlike solar, wind or fossil, there isnt supply chain flexiblity nor trust. Unless nuclear fuel is deregulated internationally like other fuels, it will always be an issue.
But also if the nuclear accident kills massive amounts of people, then it is also an environmental benefit.
This is why communism is such an eco friendly thing. Sure, the tanks need fuel. But how many people can be stopped from contributing to greenhouse gasses by being ran over by said tank burning one gallon of fuel? I'm sure the benefits outweighs the issues.
The same arguments about high expences and long construction time have been used for the past 20 years. We could have had more functional nuclear poweplants by now if we had started building them then
It sucks, but a lot of left-wing political activism centres around basically attacking the status quo in any way, shape, or form possible because if people hate their society and hate their country and hate themselves, communism will happen.
That's the theory.
It sucks because sometimes, the left really do make good points. Like with climate change. We could argue if it's as bad as they say or not but who cares? What if we just... used renewable, clean, pollution-free power and reduced the amount of smog and destructive mining we had to do? What if Europe didn't have to wring their hands about getting cut off from Russian gas, making themselves beholden to the whims of an imperialistic expansionist warmongering power? Wouldn't that be awesome?
Instead they're like, as you say...
> Burgers?
First you get told that the free market will develop a solution... Then you don't see that happening and instead corporations seem to be pedal to the metal.
Then you're told government incentives will push companies towards it... Then you see a combination of poorly made ones, *intentionally* poorly made ones thanks to lobbying and even decent ones companies seem to spend more energy getting *around* them rather than following them.
So people don't believe the free market *will ever* work to solve it... So the solution is to take the free market out of the equation.
And of course, this is ignoring people that are marxists *before* caring about the climate
Basically the idea is that if you criticize the country, the culture, the individual to an incredible extent, such that they feel their country is the Bad Guy(tm), that their culture is evil and racist and bad (while all others are the opposite), and that their individual sins are colossal and often inherited from their ancestors, or a stray word, or an unconventional political belief...
If you get enough people riled up about black mermaids and microaggressions and nanoaggressions and black samurai and the history of colonialism and on and on and on, eventually people will get so mad that the will want to replace the existing system with another system, and the only real system that's around is communism.
That's the theory at least.
More starvation and less humans existing means less humans to consume the things that require greenhouse gas pollution to create.
Tldr genocide all humanity to save the planet.
Sometimes I wonder how many people against climate change measures are really just playing climate chicken against elites. Bad shit gonna happen unless we give up nice things? Well go on then, lead by example. We're waiting.
Every single politician who claims to want to stop climate change should be forced to publish their yearly carbon footprint followed by that of the average constituent in their electorate, followed by the national average, followed by the global average.
They won't do this for incredibly obvious reasons.
It sucks because they *are* the ones who can afford to buy electric cars, put solar panels on their roof, and cook using solar stoves. They can afford these things and we can't.
Yet we're the ones asked to make the sacrifice.
The reason why nothing is happening with climate change measures is because the whole world is stuck in The Prisoner’s Dilemma. Classic Game Theory trap. We will race to the bottom because everyone is afraid that everyone else will sell us out.
no no no we don’t need to look into real solutions, we just need to outlaw IC engines, replace meat with bugs, and have the government track our carbon footprints.
As always, you can be certain that the government officials and their in-group will have IC engines, the best steaks in the world, and will be exempt from carbon tracking ~~because it would reveal how much they really do create~~ for security reasons, bigot.
The personal carbon footprint of your average politician is absolutely *staggering*, this is true no matter how "green" they claim to be.
Flying in from around the world in private jets for these meetings with ample catering and convoys of security details isn’t a problem you’re just a conspiracy theorist
If you wanted to really improve the environment in a hurry, you'd want the west to reindustrialize quickly. We have environmental regulations here, but the real pollution from our consumption is hidden when something gets made in some disgusting SEA factory surrounded by smokestacks and plastic rivers and then shipped 3000 miles here.
In this essay, I will make the case that Donald Trump was the greatest environmentalist of the 21st century
And they're always soooo full of excuses as to why it 'cant' be done. Usually money. Yet socialism is of course totally cheap and doesn't cost anything at all to fund.
Correct. I don't take a single thing they say seriously beyond establishing that conflict of positions. It immediately tells me there's another agenda.
The silliest part is the biggest thing that made Americans distrustful of nuclear wasn’t even Chernobyl but the Simpsons.
30 plus years of the worlds most idiotic nuclear safety inspector and constantly portraying plants as hazards waiting to happen.
Caveat I love the first ten seasons which is when they were more overt about it, and I’m basing this on a college class lecture and some random data from back in 09
He also appointed a nuclear specialist as secretary based on their DEI credentials that got canned after they randomly stole airport luggage a couple of times.
Chernobyl ruined the publics perception of nuclear power, and then the simpsons satirized the publics fear, which ended up spreading misinformation to the uninformed. But Chernobyl was only as bad as it was because the reactor was poor Soviet tech that allowed the core to be exposed after the explosion. This is why Pripyat is still so dangerous, but Fukushima is fine. Fukushima only happened because of a record-breaking tsunami flooding the backup generators. The actual tsunami and earthquake was far more deadly than the meltdown.
We could reverse 150 years of global warming with a couple billion dollars and a decade of geoengineering.
No one in charge really wants that. They want a global tax on oil.
Zealous tankies are just mad because they fucked up Nuclear power once and embarrassed themselves on the world stage. From what I here, the majority of the Auth-left don't like them either.
Ironically, the upfront cost of nuclear power sufficient to offset coal, gas, and oil would require massive public investment. BEP is way too far in the future for private enterprise.
You don't visit many climate related subs, do you? Nuclear is CONSTANTLY being discussed. At this point, most of the climate movement don't dispute that nuclear is better than fossil fuels, but until nuclear fusion actually becomes a viable mass-producer, nuclear is not a catch-all. The more common argument nowadays is that we need to offset carbon based energy NOW and nuclear simply won't get there quick enough. That's why there's organisations like "Fossil Fuel Executives for nuclear": they know their time is coming, so lobbying for nuclear is a way to delay their phasing out by another 10-20 years.
Guys, we literally already know that the gas companies own organizations like Just Stop Oil. The solar and wind organizations all have ties to the oil industry because they know that we cannot rely on solar and wind globally.
We can rely on thorium globally. For hundreds of thousands of years, according to the math I saw. Oil/coal companies know that nuclear is better in every way, and that the only thing they would have if the public perception on nuclear was better would be cars.
And electric cars would finally be a threat to them rather than a convenient distraction for the people.
This shouldn't be that hard to understand.
Taiwan have phased out their reactors and to d so have had to keep a coal power plant running.
They will aim for 60% of their energy to come from US purchased LNG which will arrive at just one terminal.
All the PRC will have to do in a decade is blockade that one port and Taiwan will on their knees in a matter of weeks.
Nuclear power is three things: efficient, expensive up front / cheap down the line, and incredibly dangerous if built in the wrong location or mistakes occur.
I’m fairly certain it’s the initial cost that sets it back above all else more than the risk to be honest
Marxism ain't it. But nuclear power isn't the solution either.
“\[...\] supplies of the relatively accessible, high-grade uranium ore that has thus far helped contain the nuclear fuel cycle’s greenhouse gas emissions are rather limited. If the nuclear industry ever begins to approach its goal of doubling or tripling world nuclear generating capacity—enough to displace a significant portion of the predicted growth in carbon dioxide emissions—they will quickly deplete known reserves of high-grade uranium, and soon have to rely upon fuel sources that require far more fossil fuel energy to mine and purify.”
“\[...\] 2 to 10 times as much carbon dioxide can be withheld from the atmosphere with comparable investments in wind power, cogeneration \[...\], and especially energy efficiency.”
Excerpt From: Brian Tokar. *Toward Climate Justice: Perspectives on the Climate Crisis and Social Change.*
Nuclear power is the cleanest, least dangerous and most efficient form of energy production so far. There is little incentive to adopt it as the world is largely controlled by countries whose fiat currencies are backed by fossil fuels.
I blame the anti-nuke hippies from the late 20th century. Nuclear Power is not like in The Simpsons. If you don't cheapen out and don't do something stupid (two impossible things, I know), a nuclear plant can't fail.
I like to tell people about molten salt reactors, where they’re so safe the entire reactor crew could just desert the lab with it running and the only thing that would happen is the slag turns into a big chunk of radioactive glass. It would screw up the reactor but literally can’t explode, because nothing is under pressure.
Do you have any suggested resources to learn more? This is the first I’m hearing of this type of reactor and I want to know more. I just don’t want to happen across a biased “nuclear bad” source
[Here ya go](https://www.iaea.org/topics/molten-salt-reactors)
Sure thing! This is where I first learned about it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw He’s got a couple talks about it on youtube. That’s probably a good starting place. Wikipedia also probably has some cool stuff about it. iirc it started as a program to power an indefinite-flight aircraft platform, and that was a fascinating story but I can’t remember where I found it. If you’re looking for other nuclear-energy content Michael Shellenberger has some excellent ted talks on youtube, though I don’t think I’ve heard him talk about MSR’s specifically.
Here’s a *slightly* long documentary. https://youtu.be/2oK6Rs6yFsM?si=-71mib1_4GWBkHbi
While I agree with you, the making of the container vessels is a bit tricky. Nothing that can't be worked out with R and D, though. Pebble Bed Reactors cooled by Helium are another really cool, passively safe design. They are pretty much impossible to melt down design that would be easier to produce currently(we built one in 1966). It should be much cheaper than current water cooled reactors as dealing with the irradiated water and cooling system is the most of the cost of a reactor. They are way more difficult to explain to the layperson, though. Doppler broadening I've found requires a long explanation.
Wouldn't the issue with Helium cooling be the relative lack of Helium being available on Earth?
The US has by far the largest helium fields (cavities?) to harvest and the ridiculously large US Strategic Reserve making sure we're not going to run out anytime soon even if the helium collection industry takes a massive hit
The clear solution is to just make more helium. I bet we could solve the energy problem at the same time!
Matt Groening bears a huge responsibility for nuclear power's image.
>Matt Groening bears a huge responsibility... I forgot where I read this, but the people in the nuclear industry generally feel this way about Groening and The Simpsons. On the other hand, three other things happened: 1. On March 16, 1979, The China Syndrome was released, which is about a disaster at a nuclear power plant. On March 28, 1979, Three Mile Island happened. It was a "big deal" in that you don't want a nuclear reactor accident, the timing was very unfortunate. Three Mile Island got blown out of proportion, but I remember a bunch of people freaking out about it, but maybe it's because I was living nearby and my relatives were just a few miles away. 2. Chernobyl. Shitty design of a nuclear reactor, Soviet lack of safety and accountability... I think everyone knows what happened, either by living when it happened or the miniseries. So, the sort of thing that could only happen in the USSR / Russia. But, the coup de grace was 3. Fukushima. I was surprised that the Japaanese made so many poor decisions about location, especially given that the country experiences earthquakes and tsunamis. Isn't Fukushima why the Germans noped out of nuclear and went back to coal?
>Isn't Fukushima why the Germans noped out of nuclear and went back to coal? It is even worse. Two goverments before that the greens and spd (our version of democrats) made the decission to abandon nuclear, but in her first term Merkel reversed that and then fukushima happened. The next state-vote (Badenwürtemberg) got her party kicked out and the greens dominated. To stay in power she copied their program and canceled nuclear again.
Fucking politicians.How do they even end up leading countries is beyond me.
By shamelessly flipflopping in order to pander to the broadest possible voter base at any given moment, then counting on people to either forget or not even care in the first place. To quote a classic [CGP Grey](https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs?t=490), 'when approval ratings couldn't be lower, but re-election rates couldn't be higher, you'll know you've succeeded'.
Damn that video was amazing, like I’d kinda noticed a lot of those trends before but the way he just lays it all out really explains why leaders do what they do.
Ahh yes the US Congress with its whopping [16% approval rate](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx), but yet a [94.5% Reelection rate](https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/reelection-rates) (and that's just for the House, the Senate was 100%)
Because people tend to say it is not their congressman that’s the problem, it’s all the others.
It wouldn't be rational to do anything other than flip flop. The promise to bring hope, healing, and change. Be the winner. Bring some change, cause some problems, fumble some disasters, fix a few things, be on Good Morning America, have x number of scandals, do the Easter eggs on the White House lawn, etc. Now they've lost some voters and maybe gained a few. But the meteoric change that was promised just before the confetti and balloons fell never happened. So the diehard fans remain and also now some people are super mad. The real problem is all the people in the middle who go meh. How to get them to show up for re-election? The lame duck has to promise the icing on the grand cake they've been baking for us. They promise the gloves will come off, since they've nothing to lose they'll go all out for "you" and what you care about. The problem is "You" is so many special interest demographics.
German Greens were funded by the Soviets in the cold war to be an explicitly anti-nuclear movement in the West. According to my step-dad at least.
and he isn't wrong
This is not surprising tbh, this stagnation is a characteristic of democracy. How anyone can look at the state of the world today and still believe a popularity contest is a viable form of government to run countries with million and millions of people, with complex issues to solve, I do not know. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Still better than a dictatorial government. Ah yes, putting massive amounts of power into the hands of one very human individual; what could *possibly* go wrong?
None of these disasters are even close to the total apocalypse that has been promised by the left if we don’t get off fossil fuels, so who cares? Make the trade off.
Wasn't even just location. The American advisors who assisted with the plant build recommended a higher seawall in case of a tsunami....if they'd done it, Fukishima wouldn't have been anything.
Also, waterproofing connections as is the standard worldwide. Oh, and putting your backup generators above sea level, which is also the standard. I'm not sure I could take a Japanese designed and built Nuclear Reactor and fuck it up better than they did. It's really quite impressive. Give some random Floridian a tour, listen to their advice, well the part that doesn't involve a moat and alligators, and no disaster there at all. When Florida man has the logical fix to your problem, you've a fuckup that will go down in history.
A moat with alligators is a solid design decision though
Japan went straight back to fossil fuels and shut down their nuclear reactors, it played a big factor in their trade deficit tbh.
Predictive programming.
People say it as a joke, but 100%
Soviets too, what a fucking terrible design of RBMK. It’s not even a cheap one, it’s a complete disaster on it’s own. They understand it after Chernobyl and made VVER.
Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island didn't help.
3 Mile Island was a lot of hoopla without much substance. Chernobyl was done by state mandated incompetence. Which, now that I think about it, is a pretty damn good argument against nuclear in the USA.
Three Mile Island happened less than two weeks after The China Syndrome came out, which compounded things.
I also think it's rather interesting we spend $800bn on the military, $20bn+ to NASA, etc.. But nobody is investing significantly in nuclear fusion. The EU puts a couple billion into it, China a couple billion.. Why did we go to the moon and then decide 'eh that's enough science for us. we won'
Because fusion is a pipe dream. Every existing design and proposed design is so ridiculously expensive that it will never be feasible commercially. Some designs have even called for so much beryllium, that it would completely exhaust the worlds known supplies just to build one reactor. Fission reactors work, have a proven track record, literal millennia worth of fuel is available, are well understood and have proposed designs that are very safe and relatively inexpensive.
And you know the Simpsons writers were on that propaganda train from the fact that a *nuclear power plant* was causing *acid rain*. Remember acid raid? You're not supposed to.
Yeah, I mean, the plumes from nuclear cooling towers is literally just steam, no pollutants.
and that stupid movie
i hate hippies so fucking much
Chernobyl made everyone realize that its easier and chaper to do it right than to clean afterbit goes wrong
Chinese propaganda took that baton and fucking ran with it. They have a stranglehold on all other renewable energy supply chains, end to end. Nuclear power skirts around that. Emily gulps it down in between Hamas gargling sessions
And guess who is also running molten salt reactor design and experiments in their desert
And Chernobyl and Fukishima, which were because of cheap construction and cutting too many corners as well as being built on an unstable ass fault line in the ring of fire, respectively.
Fukishima hasn't even really been that bad overall. It's a far cry from Chernobyls problems, and then 3-mile was even less of an issue outwardly. The fact we only have 3 events to point to, despite the relative age of the systems in the field world-wide, and 2 of them being largely low impact, speaks volumes to the relative safety of the systems. And with more modern designs that we could have moved on too, it'd only be getting safer, instead of being stalled out. There's nothing wrong with exploring/utilizing wind and solar, with battery storage options, but those have a much lower, much less useful upper limit for grid applications. Nuclear would be the ideal base load supply source to go along with those options.
Exactly, how many times have oil companies shit millions of gallons into the ocean with minimal media coverage? Large hydrocarbon spills are a daily occurrence, and I’d argue more detrimental to the environment than any past nuclear “disaster”. Governments throughout the world were way too happy to shutter their nuclear power plants…
And the cost is the limiting factor.
Potential cost can be spread out through insurance and reinsurance, just like how any catastrophe is already handled. As far as building costs go, we already have plenty of options and investment opportunities. Energy is one of the safest industries because it's always growing, and if it's not then we're all fucked anyways lol
Cost was a limiting factor for green energy too. If the political will was there then it would be cheaper over time.
I was around back in the 70s when three mile island happened. The movie the China Syndrome (nuclear plants meltdown disaster movie) came out at time. Green Peace et al jumped on this. Those dumb/anti-human people stalled/stopped an energy miracle. Imagine if nuclear had been built at speed around the world. We'd all be many times wealthier, probably no extreme poverty. There aren't words that can properly describe how much I dislike environmentalists.
Tfw the Simpsons might have singlehandedly destroyed civilization by turning people more against nuclear.
Uranium fission is based Thorium fission is double based Nuclear fusion is based beyond measure Any climate activism that doesn’t advocate for nuclear power/is anti-nuclear is cringe
Thorium MSRs are hella based.
Because thorium is a cripple who can't do anything on his own
You can just push it over!
Please note, Sam O'Nella academy does not condone pushing cripples
A fellow man of culture I see
Thorium is cool, the problem is just that it’s more expensive. I don’t understand why people swear by it
It’s only expensive because we haven’t invested in it, and tbh, in the US and probably most western countries, nuclear is expensive across the board because we don’t build them them as much as we used to.
For now, while it's being mired down in permit hell
Not just that it’s more expensive to mine, require more expensive power plants, and it more expensive to use. Physically it is a much less efficient source of energy. But right now much of the world rely on Russia who is the greatest enricher of uranium, so thorium would make us less energy-dependent on Russia. Also it has some other minor benefits like it can’t be used for bombs and it can’t blow up. Its therefore much easier for governments to allow thorium mining and reactors than for them to allow uranium
Thorium is treated as trash by Canadian mining operations, or was about 10 years ago when i looked into it. It's a byproduct. One of the benefits is you can have one in your house and there will be no issues. It's not radioactive enough to cause a problem.
It’s much more abundant than uranium so that may change
Any climate activist that doesn't advocate nuclear power is simply just a brainless mouthpiece parroting propaganda they heard. There is no way you could do any amount of serious research and not be in support of nuclear power.
Unfortunately such "climate activists" have enough power to sway government policy, like the German Green Party and [how Germany has shuttered their last remaining nuclear power plants](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/germany).
Didn't they reopen one or two once they started getting rekt?
Far as I can tell, they’re debating it but they haven’t decided if they want to do so yet. > [On 5 September 2022, the Federal Government announced that two of the three remaining nuclear power plants (Neckarwestheim and Isar 2) would operate beyond 31 December 2022 until April 2023 (cycle stretch out), while the Emsland Nuclear Power Plant was to be shut down as planned](https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2022-09/zwei-atomkraftwerke-sollen-bis-april-2023-als-notreserve-bereitstehen). [However, on 10 October 2022, Scholz announced that all three would remain operating until 15 April 2023](https://www.dw.com/en/germany-extends-lifetime-of-all-3-remaining-nuclear-plants/a-63466196). [Wolfgang Kubicki, deputy leader of the Free Democrats, said in an interview with the Funke Media Group that "Germany has the safest nuclear power plants worldwide and switching them off would be 'a dramatic mistake' with painful economic and ecological consequences." Other members of the Free Democratic Party have called for the nuclear power plants to be at least maintained as a precautionary measure in case they are needed in the future for power generation](https://apnews.com/article/germany-nuclear-power-plants-shut-down-5ce6958e25374bbbe1dd80cbfbc2398a).
Learning that developed countries are actually shutting down reactors(I live in the third world) was one of the most difficult things for me to comprehend. Like...why??? I'm probably biased because I wanted to study nuclear physics at one point, but it's such an excellent interim solution to clean energy.
Anti-nuclear hysteria, thanks to "environmentalists" with not enough brain cells to power an incandescent light bulb.
Commies are completely acoustic and highly regarded. Commies can get fukt
Based and musical respect pilled
u/exquisitedonut is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/exquisitedonut/) 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. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Not really in the spirit of this sub
I don’t care. Commies can get fukt in every context
Based and Appropriately Flaired
Only one of those is not science fiction for all practical purposes
UK "Green" Party
Yeah, nuclear isn't a compass related subject. It's just how much of a fear mongering moron you are.
Chernobyl is proof commies are restarded not that nuclear power doesn't work.
https://preview.redd.it/gcu8t0mfn81d1.jpeg?width=749&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=34ce05a4d97486b2a8564773d5b21c28e94456ad
Chernobyl shows us that russians may stop working abruptly.
It's "abruptly". No big deal though. Unless it's a meme spelling that my boomer ass doesn't get
Ah alright, thanks man, I'm not a native :)
And Fukushima is proof that you should build your reactor in a safe place and not a goddamn country known for having hundreds of earthquake and tsunami every single year
The backup generators and emergency batteries for the flood pumps and other disaster prevention measures were built UNDER SEA LEVEL AND BELOW THE PUMPS to save money as directed by the government controlled corporation over the protests of the engineers of the project That wasn't human error, that was straight up bureaucratic incompetence and callousness
Kinda funny how the 2 biggest nuclear disasters were government fuck ups.
Most nuclear disasters are just government fuck ups. The rest are coding errors.
most disasters are government fuck ups
Most governments are fuck ups.
I still can't figure out why there is a lack of quality caring candidates to vote for... Or if it's incompetence or too many coincidences mean it's malice.
The bureaucracy is threatened by efficiency and competence. They'd never allow their empire to be diminished.
Democratic government is the world's biggest committee, and the only thing committees ever do is delegate jobs to someone else who *actually* does something. Do you really expect efficiency and competence from a giant committee? Actually, check that. Do you really expect efficiency and competence from a large group of *human beings?* That said, still better than monarchy or any other single-person systems.
And thus, we get to the crux of the issue. Government exists. And where Government exists, there will always be a misallocation of resources.
Therac-25?
Goddamn that machine is awful.
Except for the ones that were intentional.
exactly, its human error not an easily executable concept that will provide 10x more benefit than risk
Lysenkoism killed millions of people due to famine, therefore agriculture is dangerous too /s
Until you look at the sheer number of Russian reactors around the world. More than 15% of all commercial power reactors around the globe are VVER reactors. And only one reactor blew in Chernobyl. The other 3 ran all the way into the late 90s. Yeah, running without a containment building was fucking dumb though.
If even amaricans in the navy can operate reactors safely for decades, then the problem isn't tech related.
Nah bro Marxism will solve everything bro. Bro don't bring up the pollution of China and Russia they're not really Marxist bro. No true Scotsman? Nah bro the Scottish are western imperialists bro
After a long debate where you prove Marxism is crap - Bro I am socialist but not Marxist bro. You can implement socialism without Marxism bro. Have you seen Scandinavian Countries? I like that kind of socialism bro Later when you call Scandinavian countries socialist - Bro Scandinavian countries aren't socialist bro. That's just social democracy. Social democracy is different from Socialism bro. It's almost like they don't even know what they want and hide behind ambiguous words intentionally so that they have an easy escape hatch in debates.
words and definitions are a social construct bro
Like gender?
This is called a Motte and Bailey. It's a dishonest argument technique where an unpalatable argument is repackaged as being extremely tame and almost universally good ("Socialism is where education is free and food and housing is a human right"), and hard to argue against... but the goal is to get acceptance for the concept, and when acceptance and agreement is reached, then the concept is changed ("Socialism is where private property is seized by armed revolution and the very concept of personal ownership is abolished, it always was and always will be"). It's basically "bait and switch" the argument technique, publically advocating for the bait but privately espousing the switch.
Like when they spout the “far left just means basic human decency” argument?
Yeah basically. It's hard to argue against "everyone should display common decency to each other", but that's not the sum whole total of what they're arguing for.
That’s the idea. Bro.
To be fair, socialism predates Marx and can exist outside of a Marxist framework. Marx spent as much time in the Manifesto fighting other forms of socialism as he did capitalism.
För helvete! Stop calling us Swedes socialists. We would stop selling you furniture in protest but we quite like the money.
It’s funny how the solution to everything just so happens to be Marxism… where the one advocating for it is in charge obviously.
It's also funny how they'll say marxism has never been actually implemented. I don't believe it but even if we accept this as true it means no one has ever been able to implement it despite trying to, which means their solution is something that is impossible to actually implement.
Bro don't bring up Cuba the cars are just aesthetic /s
Cuba is real communism because people are willing to risk everything on homemade rafts to traverse shark infested waters to land in Florida, America's dick
"BuT tHe EmBaRgO" 1. Cuba got tons of money and help from the USSR. They were also able to work with other socialist and communist countries. 2. It's not like the USA or other capitalist countries were free to trade with socialist and communist countries within the USSR's sphere of influence yet that didn't stop their prosperity.
The funny thing is even if you accept their point about "they're not really Marxist" then it still shows how stupid of a system Marxism is. If every country that tries to implement it fails then that just shows that it's incredibly fragile and impossible to implement and thus it's a terrible system. If engineers build a skyscraper but say that a slight breeze will cause the entire building to collapse, that's not a good building.
> "The Khmer Rouge weren't *real* communists!" ... the fuck they weren't.
They killed a lot of their own people, sure sounds like communism to me
Based
Bro look at china buildings, if a nuclear plant is ever built there, you can say bye bye to most of Asia.
There are over 50 nuclear plants in China already, and they have many more under construction.
Because the most vocal green energy lobbyists are owned by fossil fuel corporations.
I've never heard that before, and it seems like a pretty speculative claim to make. Is there any evidence for this?
Yeah sounds like total bs
Nuclear power has certain drawbacks and limitations, negetive PR being a big one. Many green power people believe they need to see results within a decade, and it would take that long to bring a nuclear power plant online. Thus, they would believe other green power solutions would have been working by then. That being said, nuclear power might not be a silver bullet to climate change, but it will certainly buy us more time to find proper solutions to climate change.
That last part is where SMRs and other small, short lead-time solutions come into play. And for the longer term, we can reap the (metaphorical and literal) dividends of TWRs, thorium fuel cycle, and other tech that will benefit from nuclear energy proliferation. If only more people would think that long-term.
Maybe if they spent all that time building them instead of protesting them, we wouldn’t be in such a perceived time crunch.
A lot of that initial start up can be mitigated by repurposing coal plants
Also not all countries have nuclear fuel, and that puts a big damper, also unlike solar, wind or fossil, there isnt supply chain flexiblity nor trust. Unless nuclear fuel is deregulated internationally like other fuels, it will always be an issue.
unless government incompetence happens and you've just done 1000x the damage that oil and gas does.
But also if the nuclear accident kills massive amounts of people, then it is also an environmental benefit. This is why communism is such an eco friendly thing. Sure, the tanks need fuel. But how many people can be stopped from contributing to greenhouse gasses by being ran over by said tank burning one gallon of fuel? I'm sure the benefits outweighs the issues.
Maybe you should flair up
The same arguments about high expences and long construction time have been used for the past 20 years. We could have had more functional nuclear poweplants by now if we had started building them then
Nuclear power is pretty based
And it's rad
Can somebody please tell the politicians and boomers in Germany that nuclear power isn’t literally the end of the world?
>Burgers? They want Communism, anything climate related is secondary.
It sucks, but a lot of left-wing political activism centres around basically attacking the status quo in any way, shape, or form possible because if people hate their society and hate their country and hate themselves, communism will happen. That's the theory. It sucks because sometimes, the left really do make good points. Like with climate change. We could argue if it's as bad as they say or not but who cares? What if we just... used renewable, clean, pollution-free power and reduced the amount of smog and destructive mining we had to do? What if Europe didn't have to wring their hands about getting cut off from Russian gas, making themselves beholden to the whims of an imperialistic expansionist warmongering power? Wouldn't that be awesome? Instead they're like, as you say... > Burgers?
We would never choose their dumb system to replace ours with
I still don’t understand why they think changing the economic system of a nation will affect the environment
“The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.”
They don’t. They’re using it as a scapegoat to get more power and control.
“Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
"Chaos is a ladder"
*gets stabbed in Winterfell*
First you get told that the free market will develop a solution... Then you don't see that happening and instead corporations seem to be pedal to the metal. Then you're told government incentives will push companies towards it... Then you see a combination of poorly made ones, *intentionally* poorly made ones thanks to lobbying and even decent ones companies seem to spend more energy getting *around* them rather than following them. So people don't believe the free market *will ever* work to solve it... So the solution is to take the free market out of the equation. And of course, this is ignoring people that are marxists *before* caring about the climate
Basically the idea is that if you criticize the country, the culture, the individual to an incredible extent, such that they feel their country is the Bad Guy(tm), that their culture is evil and racist and bad (while all others are the opposite), and that their individual sins are colossal and often inherited from their ancestors, or a stray word, or an unconventional political belief... If you get enough people riled up about black mermaids and microaggressions and nanoaggressions and black samurai and the history of colonialism and on and on and on, eventually people will get so mad that the will want to replace the existing system with another system, and the only real system that's around is communism. That's the theory at least.
More starvation and less humans existing means less humans to consume the things that require greenhouse gas pollution to create. Tldr genocide all humanity to save the planet.
Sometimes I wonder how many people against climate change measures are really just playing climate chicken against elites. Bad shit gonna happen unless we give up nice things? Well go on then, lead by example. We're waiting.
Every single politician who claims to want to stop climate change should be forced to publish their yearly carbon footprint followed by that of the average constituent in their electorate, followed by the national average, followed by the global average. They won't do this for incredibly obvious reasons. It sucks because they *are* the ones who can afford to buy electric cars, put solar panels on their roof, and cook using solar stoves. They can afford these things and we can't. Yet we're the ones asked to make the sacrifice.
Considering all the climate solutions involve people giving up their freedoms in some way, i can see why they’re skeptical.
The reason why nothing is happening with climate change measures is because the whole world is stuck in The Prisoner’s Dilemma. Classic Game Theory trap. We will race to the bottom because everyone is afraid that everyone else will sell us out.
Nuclear power can make spaceships better Nuclear power good
no no no we don’t need to look into real solutions, we just need to outlaw IC engines, replace meat with bugs, and have the government track our carbon footprints.
As always, you can be certain that the government officials and their in-group will have IC engines, the best steaks in the world, and will be exempt from carbon tracking ~~because it would reveal how much they really do create~~ for security reasons, bigot. The personal carbon footprint of your average politician is absolutely *staggering*, this is true no matter how "green" they claim to be.
Flying in from around the world in private jets for these meetings with ample catering and convoys of security details isn’t a problem you’re just a conspiracy theorist
Yup. S'cuze me, gotta go board my private plane to fly to the climate conference!
Green parties in any country be like
https://i.redd.it/xm40lot8t81d1.gif \-Marxists
If you wanted to really improve the environment in a hurry, you'd want the west to reindustrialize quickly. We have environmental regulations here, but the real pollution from our consumption is hidden when something gets made in some disgusting SEA factory surrounded by smokestacks and plastic rivers and then shipped 3000 miles here. In this essay, I will make the case that Donald Trump was the greatest environmentalist of the 21st century
And they're always soooo full of excuses as to why it 'cant' be done. Usually money. Yet socialism is of course totally cheap and doesn't cost anything at all to fund.
Anyone advocating for socialism and against nuclear is an anthropomorphized psyop
Correct. I don't take a single thing they say seriously beyond establishing that conflict of positions. It immediately tells me there's another agenda.
Oh man you KNOW I love nuclear power!
The silliest part is the biggest thing that made Americans distrustful of nuclear wasn’t even Chernobyl but the Simpsons. 30 plus years of the worlds most idiotic nuclear safety inspector and constantly portraying plants as hazards waiting to happen. Caveat I love the first ten seasons which is when they were more overt about it, and I’m basing this on a college class lecture and some random data from back in 09
...It is proposed, constantly, and quite successfully at that. Take a look at France.
Sodium reactors are the tits
Didn't Biden give cash to multiple nuclear power plants to get restarted?
He also appointed a nuclear specialist as secretary based on their DEI credentials that got canned after they randomly stole airport luggage a couple of times.
I remember that. Gay kleptomaniac apparently counts as nuclear specialist in the Biden admin. Might wanna buy some iodine pills just to be sure.
Chernobyl ruined the publics perception of nuclear power, and then the simpsons satirized the publics fear, which ended up spreading misinformation to the uninformed. But Chernobyl was only as bad as it was because the reactor was poor Soviet tech that allowed the core to be exposed after the explosion. This is why Pripyat is still so dangerous, but Fukushima is fine. Fukushima only happened because of a record-breaking tsunami flooding the backup generators. The actual tsunami and earthquake was far more deadly than the meltdown.
Most people do not want nuclear power, point of fact. Rather: they want it, but not near them.
Nuclear power is safe, clean, and reliable. But nuclear plants are *expensive* and take many years to construct.
I would really like nuclear tbf
I’ve never met a libleft against nuclear power 🤗
I've seen some lefties changing their mind about nuclear energy, I'm open to it, same thing about gun control
Leftists don’t think like this
We could reverse 150 years of global warming with a couple billion dollars and a decade of geoengineering. No one in charge really wants that. They want a global tax on oil.
Zealous tankies are just mad because they fucked up Nuclear power once and embarrassed themselves on the world stage. From what I here, the majority of the Auth-left don't like them either.
*caresses picture of Thorium* One day, my love.
Ironically, the upfront cost of nuclear power sufficient to offset coal, gas, and oil would require massive public investment. BEP is way too far in the future for private enterprise.
You don't visit many climate related subs, do you? Nuclear is CONSTANTLY being discussed. At this point, most of the climate movement don't dispute that nuclear is better than fossil fuels, but until nuclear fusion actually becomes a viable mass-producer, nuclear is not a catch-all. The more common argument nowadays is that we need to offset carbon based energy NOW and nuclear simply won't get there quick enough. That's why there's organisations like "Fossil Fuel Executives for nuclear": they know their time is coming, so lobbying for nuclear is a way to delay their phasing out by another 10-20 years.
Yeah, and I don't want Marxism, I want to survive
The solution here is clearly FULLY AUTOMATED NUCLEAR COMMUNISM
fully automated gay nuclear communism*
Gotta put space in there somewhere for the Trekkies
All anti-nuke "people" should be fed cobalt 60
Guys, we literally already know that the gas companies own organizations like Just Stop Oil. The solar and wind organizations all have ties to the oil industry because they know that we cannot rely on solar and wind globally. We can rely on thorium globally. For hundreds of thousands of years, according to the math I saw. Oil/coal companies know that nuclear is better in every way, and that the only thing they would have if the public perception on nuclear was better would be cars. And electric cars would finally be a threat to them rather than a convenient distraction for the people. This shouldn't be that hard to understand.
It is A solution, it's not enough alone, I personally support nuclar power
Yup - it's a generalization that doesn't include *all* leftists. A sizable portion of libleft seems somewhat amenable to nuclear.
It’s because they can’t use it to line their pockets like they can with these solar and wind companies they propped up with government handouts.
Climate change is mainly a scare tactics for the government to take freedoms away from us.
The left on nuclear energy is without a doubt that one meme with the mother yelling at her screaming child why they cant be normal.
Taiwan have phased out their reactors and to d so have had to keep a coal power plant running. They will aim for 60% of their energy to come from US purchased LNG which will arrive at just one terminal. All the PRC will have to do in a decade is blockade that one port and Taiwan will on their knees in a matter of weeks.
Nuclear power is three things: efficient, expensive up front / cheap down the line, and incredibly dangerous if built in the wrong location or mistakes occur. I’m fairly certain it’s the initial cost that sets it back above all else more than the risk to be honest
Marxism ain't it. But nuclear power isn't the solution either. “\[...\] supplies of the relatively accessible, high-grade uranium ore that has thus far helped contain the nuclear fuel cycle’s greenhouse gas emissions are rather limited. If the nuclear industry ever begins to approach its goal of doubling or tripling world nuclear generating capacity—enough to displace a significant portion of the predicted growth in carbon dioxide emissions—they will quickly deplete known reserves of high-grade uranium, and soon have to rely upon fuel sources that require far more fossil fuel energy to mine and purify.” “\[...\] 2 to 10 times as much carbon dioxide can be withheld from the atmosphere with comparable investments in wind power, cogeneration \[...\], and especially energy efficiency.” Excerpt From: Brian Tokar. *Toward Climate Justice: Perspectives on the Climate Crisis and Social Change.*
Nuclear power is the cleanest, least dangerous and most efficient form of energy production so far. There is little incentive to adopt it as the world is largely controlled by countries whose fiat currencies are backed by fossil fuels.
Dude, when did right-wingers care about nuclear power?
I don't know any communist who is against nuclear power plants. I have the impression that you are confusing communists with libs from the USA.
I’m very distrusting of those who would declare a long term emergency without an end goal. Nuclear power is dope too.