Nuclear Energy or STFU

Nov 8, 2012
12,380
1,743
126
#1
There is a certain political correctness going around right now that says wind/siolar is the only "clean" way to go.

Nevermind 2nd grade research to understand that in order to create solar/wind requires these things called "batteries" - which requires extensive mining that creates the exhaust of hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil, but let's ignore that.

Nuclear energy is the only real sustainable future. Why is it that the left is ignoring this and is acting as if they are nuclear psychsisits when they are anything but?




This is one of the many equivalencies of the lefts version of denying science.

Moved from OT.

Perknose
Forum Director
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sep 2, 2006
18,184
325
126
#4
50 years from now, i think nuclear will be a lot more popular

hopefully the power plants, not the weapons

also i'm not really looking forward to being alive in 50 years
 
Jun 19, 2004
23,457
521
126
#6
It's not about which is "better," it's about which is easier to present as a solution to Congress and the Senate. The perception of the public right now is that solar and wind are safer, facts be damned. Like ALL infrastructure, it's all about perception.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
6,631
856
136
#7
There is a certain political correctness going around right now that says wind/siolar is the only "clean" way to go.

Nevermind 2nd grade research to understand that in order to create solar/wind requires these things called "batteries" - which requires extensive mining that creates the exhaust of hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil, but let's ignore that.

Nuclear energy is the only real sustainable future. Why is it that the left is ignoring this and is acting as if they are nuclear psychsisits when they are anything but?




This is one of the many equivalencies of the lefts version of denying science.

Moved from OT.

Perknose
Forum Director
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island ring a bell? Heck, that 2017 Russian incident that was only lately disclosed.

Yes, nuclear safety has improved, and yes, calamities like Chernobyl were caused in part by mismanagement. But the truth remains that you're still dealing with loads of radioactive waste that you have to dispose somewhere for centuries, and unless you can ensure high standards of design and maintenance for every reactor, there's the potential for a disaster if something goes wrong.

Renewables like solar and wind can still be clean to produce, and are still ultimately better for the environment than many conventional power sources. They're certainly easier to deploy than nuclear power plants.

If you want something closer to the ideal for large-scale power, look at fusion. It's a long way off, but it should be much safer.
 
Aug 19, 2007
759
264
136
#8
I'd like to see more work/research on Thorium reactors. Sounds like they could be rather advantageous, other than the fact that they aren't useful for producing weapons grade material. Hopefully something like solar will get much better but in the meantime I think nuclear is acceptable. I mean, France is about 75% powered by nuclear.

Ideally we could launch the waste into space, but the result of an accident there would be beyond terrible. If we ever get practical fusion working, that wouldn't be a problem.
 

tweaker2

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2000
9,980
640
126
#9
Biggest problem with nuclear is finding places to put those plants. The NIMBY effect will be extraordinarily strong with that source of power.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
4,435
497
136
#10
Thorium/Molten Salt nuclear reactor technology is relatively ready to go and has been for decades, but it doesn't help produce nuclear weapons, so it never got started. It is also pretty damn safe, as it doesn't require massive pressure that tends to make nuclear energy catastrophically dangerous. And it can even be used to dispose of nuclear waste.

I'm all for it, along with ending subsidies to carbon energy producers, and moving those subsidies to renewable energy and Thorium/Molten Salt nuclear power.

But I highly doubt that it's possible in the near-term, not because LIBRUUUULS, but because the money and power has been and still is with carbon energy producers.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,352
284
126
#12
I can tell from several of the replies that the authors didn't watch the videos linked. Don't let facts get in your way.
 
Mar 10, 2006
63,189
4,564
126
#14
There is a certain political correctness going around right now that says wind/siolar is the only "clean" way to go.

Nevermind 2nd grade research to understand that in order to create solar/wind requires these things called "batteries" - which requires extensive mining that creates the exhaust of hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil, but let's ignore that.

Nuclear energy is the only real sustainable future. Why is it that the left is ignoring this and is acting as if they are nuclear psychsisits when they are anything but?




This is one of the many equivalencies of the lefts version of denying science.

Moved from OT.

Perknose
Forum Director
Nuclear energy is not the only sustainable future, it is one of many carbon free options we should be employing.

So yes, people worried about climate change who oppose nuclear energy are making a mistake. Ignoring or discounting solar and wind power is also a mistake though.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,352
284
126
#17
Nuclear energy is not the only sustainable future, it is one of many carbon free options we should be employing.

So yes, people worried about climate change who oppose nuclear energy are making a mistake. Ignoring or discounting solar and wind power is also a mistake though.
But solar and wind are far from carbon free options. Did you even watch the links he provided?
 
Mar 10, 2006
63,189
4,564
126
#22
But solar and wind are far from carbon free options. Did you even watch the links he provided?
Yes, I did. There are a number of problems with it and with the OP.

First, if you’re going to consider the carbon emissions inherent in battery creation you need to consider the carbon emissions inherent in mining and processing uranium.

Second, his cost figures appear to be wildly wrong on the cost of nuclear power vs. renewables and he was wildly wrong about uptime for those power sources as well. In addition he appears to have cherry picked his dates for electricity price changes and provides no evidence for renewables driving those changes other than just saying that’s the case. He also conveniently leaves out that scaling nuclear power in the way he wants to will deplete the world’s concentrated uranium reserves in short order, massively driving carbon emissions for fueling reactors up. Simply put as is the case with most Ted Talks he set off my bullshit alarm about five different times. No power source is truly carbon free at this time and that goes for nuclear power as well.

I fully support nuclear power and think the US should build more of it. The idea that nuclear power and only nuclear power is the answer is not supported by the evidence that I have seen.

Ted Talks are dumb and no one should watch them.
 
Mar 11, 2004
18,856
1,085
126
#23
OP is drunk again.
Nah he's just a fucking moron that knows pretty much nothing about anything but thinks his opinions should matter because well he made up his mind goddamnit and nothing is going to change that! If he's drunk, its with stupidity and its permanent as I don't think there's any amount of knowledge that can get him over the hump of his own idiocy.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
98,268
515
126
#24
biggest problem with nuclear power is that the world is capable of building about 10 plants in the timeframe that they're necessary. not even the chinese can build them much faster than 5 years from first reactor concrete poured. and that timeframe doesn't include site selection, architecting, engineering, permitting, and groundwork before the concrete can be poured. the latest attempt at expanding a nuclear plant in the US is years behind schedule, billions over budget, and bankrupted its primary contractor.


I'd like to see more work/research on Thorium reactors. Sounds like they could be rather advantageous, other than the fact that they aren't useful for producing weapons grade material. Hopefully something like solar will get much better but in the meantime I think nuclear is acceptable. I mean, France is about 75% powered by nuclear.

Ideally we could launch the waste into space, but the result of an accident there would be beyond terrible. If we ever get practical fusion working, that wouldn't be a problem.
i feel like i've been reading about thorium reactors on this board for two decades
 
Mar 11, 2004
18,856
1,085
126
#25
I guess people on here haven't seen how Russia has a nuclear powered missile that blew up and killed several Russians (and even if it works as its supposed to will leak radiation all over its flight path)? Because that's the type of shit we're gonna get with a gung ho nuclear mindset like the OP wants.

Thorium/Molten Salt nuclear reactor technology is relatively ready to go and has been for decades, but it doesn't help produce nuclear weapons, so it never got started. It is also pretty damn safe, as it doesn't require massive pressure that tends to make nuclear energy catastrophically dangerous. And it can even be used to dispose of nuclear waste.

I'm all for it, along with ending subsidies to carbon energy producers, and moving those subsidies to renewable energy and Thorium/Molten Salt nuclear power.

But I highly doubt that it's possible in the near-term, not because LIBRUUUULS, but because the money and power has been and still is with carbon energy producers.
Those would be helpful, but they've also been grossly overstated in how amazing they're supposed to be. Which has been the issue with nuclear all along, it has not lived up to its potential enough to make it viable for meeting human's energy needs on Earth, let alone when we factor in its drawbacks. It definitely should be one of the methods we utilize, and we need to keep developing it (and hopefully can find a way to get to fusion), but a lot of that development is decades if not centuries away from bearing worthwhile fruit.

Ending fossil fuel subsidies should have already happened. Hybrids should have become the most common powertrain style before now. It should've been mandated. Then we can transition the premium segments to full electric, and develop battery tech to hopefully convert the rest to full electric.

Nuclear isn't going to magically solve our problems, but it should be part of the mix of energy production for sure.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS