Yes. Chernobyl & 3 Mile Island was a long time ago. Measures have been put in place since. And nuclear energy is the cleanest, most efficient and least wasteful energy there is.
Knew Fukushima was gonna show up. Fukushima had nothing to do with a nuclear meltdown, it was to do with a natural disaster that affected the stupidly placed site. Also, Hiroshima is now liveable after only 6 years. Chernobyl is not inhabitable and it's been 40. Progress.
Shows that one simple disaster can not only completely knock out a power source, but cause huge environmental consequences and potential deaths. Some sort of progress there.
One simple disaster is going to completely knock out a power source and cause huge environmental consequences and potential deaths anyways. Nuclear energy works to bring a lot more power to a lot more homes a lot more quickly.
No I do not, there are great alternatives, but problem being everyone is so dependent on the nuclear power they aren't working to make this a reality, cause It is cheap. There are huge problems with Nuclear power, besides the safety issues if something did go wrong we have such a awful waste from it, though there may be little of it, it sure is potent and it does decay slowly it will take thousands of years for it to be safe from what nuclear scientists say but I fear it would be longer, and they are storing these in mountains and other places, spent nuclear waste will keep stacking up it might be as small amount now but the future it will be more unless we choose a better power source. Not to long ago they wanted to store nuclear waste in a small mountain out here in the wilderness where I live, and it could have had major consequences our our wildlife and our families, but we stopped it.
Nuclear energy is not cheap and affordable. An average plant costs over $9 billions to build, which is much more than other alternatives such as wind or solar. Not only is it not economical, but whenever it does cause an environmental catastrophe, it costs a fortune to clean up. Also, just because the pollution is invisible doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or it’s safe.
Fuck no. There are too many different ways to generate energy that wont make our children grow extra toes. Fukashima is already negatively impacting global health and will be for the next 100 or so years. Switching energy sources will create enough new jobs to solve the unemployment crisis. To bad the dickheads profiting from this shit paid off the worthless ass EPA not to do what makes obvious sense.
Wind and Solar provide so little energy that it's virtually negligible. Wind power provides the US with ~16,000,000 kWh per year. Solar power is hard so I'll estimate. Say all homes in the US are on a 1.0 KW system and every single day is a bright, sunny day. Then they produce ~4kWh per home, 135,000,000 in total. Then that's 540,000,000. That's being exceedingly generous. In reality not every home is going to be on any system at all and it's not always going to be a bright sunny day So all in all that's 556,000,000. Nuclear energy provides 805,327,221mWh (1 mWh is 1,000 kWh). Nuclear energy takes up 90% of capacity in the US (You're likely on nuclear energy right now). I'd back these up with sources but unfortunately I'm still a newbie so I can't pose URLs. Look, I get it. I know nuclear energy is a taboo topic like abortion or the Trump administration. I get there are bad sides and there are good sides, when things go right with nuclear energy they can provide a massive amount of energy but people don't like it cus they see the word 'Nuclear' and think it's bad. But when it goes bad it goes terribly bad. People seem to forget that wind and solar panel also has its flaws, but people tend to report when things go good in those sectors but not bad. And tend to report when things go bad in the nuclear energy sector but not when they go good. Wind power for example fucks up weather patterns, causes bats and birds lungs to literally explode because of the change in pressure. Of course, these aren't as bad as say a nuclear meltdown.
I don’t live in the US, but rather in a place that vehemently opposes nuclear energy and waste storage, but we survived well without them. If the entire world went on nuclear power, there will need to be 15,000 more plants added. Even with less than 500, there’s a shortage on nuclear storage, let alone with 15,000. Also, uranium is energy-intensive to mine, and it’ll only become more expensive the more it’s mined due to depletion. This would cause the price of nuclear energy to actually rise, while renewables would likely decrease due to technological improvements.
That's a strawman. IF the entire world went on nuclear power IF I ate a burrito this morning IF a giant meteorite wiped us out. What's your point? I'm not advocating for the entire world going on nuclear energy.
It wasn’t a strawman, but rather a logical argument. On the contrary, this latest post of yours qualifies more as a strawman, as it has nothing to do with what I claimed. And your posts do show you advocating for nuclear power in general. What would stop you from supporting a worldwide effort?
First of all. Yes it was. I said absolutely nothing to do with advocating worldwide nuclear power. This is a thread on nuclear power and you were arguing against nuclear power, were you expecting me to start talking about coal power? All I'm saying is that, like this forum, you give it a chance. Second. Mine wasn't a strawman, you were saying how nuclear power isn't cheap and affordable, I was saying - what's the phrase? 'More bang for your buck?' That's the argument I was making. Sure, nuclear energy costs more. You've likely found the same study as me, saw the "$6 billion to $9 billion" and just decided to post the $9 billion part cus it looks bigger. There's a big number between 6 billion and 9 billion. But there are less nuclear power plants than there are wind farms, solar farms or wave power generators. A wind turbine that can power a single home costs $50,000. I have no idea how many there are in the US, I doubt they keep track. But I did find one that said 4 million could support half of 2030 (Meaning 8 million). That's a lot of money. I found another saying that 518,000 would be enough for today. Both seem wildly inconsistent so I have no estimate. But I doubt there's less than 100. There are 99 nuclear power plants in the US at this time, each costin BETWEEN $6b and $9b. Yep, a lot of money also. But more bang for your buck. I don't think Nuclear Power is the way forward. Nope, absolutely not. But it's the only one at this time that is both viable and efficient and think it will be replaced once we have the technology. I am an advocate for interstellar energy. No, not meditation and such. I mean using satellites equipped with powerful solar panels and then transmitting that power down to earth. More sci-fi I know but people are working on it. Nope. The same way I'm an advocate for video games but not attached to it career wise.
There was no post of yours that specifically stated you dont advocate for worldwide nuclear power. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding, but it wasn’t on my part. Those are just the cost to build them. There’s also cost of storage, which for LOW-level waste, is actually quite cheap in the USA (for some reason; it’s a fortune in Europe) but is still $500-1,000 per cubic metre. High-level waste would be even more. Even without the monetary cost, there’s also biological and environmental costs, such as increased radiation.
I don't get what you're saying here. There was no post stating I didn't advocate for worldwide power. So it's my fault that you took my posts as meaning I did? Whut? Here you have a fair point.
Was thinking if you where being biased but ok man. Anyway you keep talking about how much each power source provide for the US, have to realize why solar power stand for so little of the over all power in your country, its cause of nuclear power and how people are earning big bucks from it. Greed is the major factor of the brainwashing that goes around you don't understand how much false information that is out there, and how much technology is being held back cause of Greed. Reason why the output of solar energy is lower is cause there are not as many as would be needed, as well as it has not been developed to its full potential cause they keep developing Nuclear Power. The sun is the most powerful thing we have at hand, and Solar power is catching up, it might not be suited for the main consumer atm cause of greed but IT is close, close enough to take over right now. We are far away from Fusion reactors so next viable option to focus on would be solar energy.
Yes I agree. Though you are talking like nuclear power companies are greedy and solar power companies aren't. I've found that they're just as greedy as one another. But solar power will never be able to catch up to nuclear power, the PV Cells just aren't powerful enough. To put it into perspective, all the solar cells in the world still don't add up to a single nuclear power plant. I would say how interstellar solar power would be able to change that, but I know that aerospace companies are just as greedy as energy and power companies.
Nuclear produces incredibly acundant energy. Problem is waste disposal and when something goes wrong, it goes real fucking wrong. Not worth it when you can solar panel Every home plus a few sun farms and power the entire world.
