Many experts agree nuclear power is the safest way to deliver baseload power to cities. To build a nuclear power plant costs about as much as a coal plant, but the downside is they are a heavy cost (about 3x more) to keep running.
Opponents of nuclear power suggest previous disasters (fukushima, chernobyl, 3 mile island) are a clear sign nuclear power is not a viable energy source. Advocates suggest these disasters could have been avoided if more precautions were made. for example: fukushima couldve been avoided if a large concrete wall was built on the shoreline to stop the tsunami damage. Cherynoble could have been avoided if underground trap doors were implemented to catch radioactive spill.
Also if America aimed for a goal such as 75% nuclear like Germany, power bills would be more cheaper. The tricky part is finding locations to build nuclear power plants and transfer the city energy from a coal plant over to a nuclear one.
Id like to clear some things up before climate skeptics flood with replies, that way most the big climate misconceptions can be somewhat dispelled out of the way. I know this will be a hard redpill for the far right to swallow, but climate science is not a leftist hoax. (yes there are center conservatives who accept climate science, but some disagree on carbon tax as the solution, like myself) Humans put out approximately 60x more CO2 than vocanoes per year so dont bring up "hurr durr volcano pollution". Although humans put out less co2 than all the natural forces combined we are upsetting the balance. The amount of co2 in the atmosphere is too much for all the carbon sinks to absorb such as forests and oceans. Sure carbon cycles are still happening, but not the way they were in pre industrial levels. Id like to also note that most leftists are an epic failure at climate action, even though most accept the consensus. This is why climate solutions must not be dealt with in the hands of the left.
Well what about nuclear waste? we can make underground waste storages in the Nevada desert. What about the toxicity of nuclear waste? Coal waste is about 7x more toxic. What about toxic nuclear emmissions? you mean 99% water vapor?
On top of that, new technologies are on the rise such as nuclear fission and sodium nuclear with more efficency. hopefully future solutions will bring down the costs near the levels of coal plants or even cheaper.
Now that I have that out of the way… Nuclear Power could drastically cut C02 emissions stopping the recent patterns of droughts and prevent agricultural prices from skyrocketing. "hurr durr farmers use CO2 to increase yeild!!" yes they do, but thay doesnt apply to all forms of agriculture. CO2 wont help crops if they dont have water. And of course some sensitive plant and animal species will suffer less from the inability to adapt to higher CO2 levels.
I think most conservatives will agree they like breathing cleaner air. (liberals will still cry about gasoline powered vehicles unfortunatley) I wouldnt say these are all reliable facts since I have no citations. These are just my recalls on the subject while researching it. Im just looking for thoughts and opinions on the matter. Are you for or against it? Do you think its too early to jump right in nuclear technology? or should we jump right in now? What are your thoughts?
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
>>117419
California could solve two of its gigantic crises issues with nukes on the shore alongside desalination plants.
Water and power.
California could solve two of its gigantic crises issues with nukes on the shore alongside desalination plants.
Water and power.
Nuclear power is great… which is probably why the left opposes it so much.
>>117419
Still don’t believe you on the climate crisis. It ain’t going to be a problem. If the world supposedly had dinosaurs wiped out with a meteor or something that polluted the air and it all returned to normal for us to be here, then it is going to be fine, it just might take us out. (Even though I don’t believe in evolution, but that is another topic altogether)
Now before you yell at me, yes, we should preserve ourselves and the future of white children, duh. I wouldn’t be on this site if I didn’t believe that. But you people always fret over things you can’t fully control. We can make a few steps here and there toward something better, but we are not going to ever reduce the CO2 once we start hitting even larger population numbers than we have ever seen.
That all being said, nuclear option is decent. What I want to see though is space missions to cover the planets and moons out there in power stations and farms. Think about it. Although the current space tech is limited in comparison to what we need, and the costs would be tremendous, we could solve power problems for good.
No one would care if there was a scary nuclear accident on another planet. No one would care if a moon was polluted. These things are giant platforms waiting to have something built on them. Maybe I’m just crazy and our tech couldn’t make it happen, but that would solve our CO2 scare crowd and our nuclear scare crowd.
Still don’t believe you on the climate crisis. It ain’t going to be a problem. If the world supposedly had dinosaurs wiped out with a meteor or something that polluted the air and it all returned to normal for us to be here, then it is going to be fine, it just might take us out. (Even though I don’t believe in evolution, but that is another topic altogether)
Now before you yell at me, yes, we should preserve ourselves and the future of white children, duh. I wouldn’t be on this site if I didn’t believe that. But you people always fret over things you can’t fully control. We can make a few steps here and there toward something better, but we are not going to ever reduce the CO2 once we start hitting even larger population numbers than we have ever seen.
That all being said, nuclear option is decent. What I want to see though is space missions to cover the planets and moons out there in power stations and farms. Think about it. Although the current space tech is limited in comparison to what we need, and the costs would be tremendous, we could solve power problems for good.
No one would care if there was a scary nuclear accident on another planet. No one would care if a moon was polluted. These things are giant platforms waiting to have something built on them. Maybe I’m just crazy and our tech couldn’t make it happen, but that would solve our CO2 scare crowd and our nuclear scare crowd.
>>117419
>nuclear fission
I assume you're talking about nuclear FUSION, as fission is what we're using for nuclear power now.
With our current technology, no, I don't think nuclear power is the answer. Not until we can reliably use nuclear fusion on both the macro and micro scale. Sadly, because of lobbying from coal and oil, we're woefully behind in renewable/clean energy technology.
>nuclear fission
I assume you're talking about nuclear FUSION, as fission is what we're using for nuclear power now.
With our current technology, no, I don't think nuclear power is the answer. Not until we can reliably use nuclear fusion on both the macro and micro scale. Sadly, because of lobbying from coal and oil, we're woefully behind in renewable/clean energy technology.
>>117426
>No one would care if a moon was polluted
Wrong, we've got freaks that don't want us to go back to the moon, let alone mars because we'll "Destroy the environment"
>No one would care if a moon was polluted
Wrong, we've got freaks that don't want us to go back to the moon, let alone mars because we'll "Destroy the environment"
It's great and we need more of it
>>117431
The environment that already can’t support life can be ruined? These people need to be gassed. They obviously have a mental disease that can’t be cured if literally nothing can be harmed from said pollution.
The environment that already can’t support life can be ruined? These people need to be gassed. They obviously have a mental disease that can’t be cured if literally nothing can be harmed from said pollution.
>>117433
>implying they're people
>not just ayylmaos that don't want us to leave Earth again because they know we're biologically better
>implying they're people
>not just ayylmaos that don't want us to leave Earth again because they know we're biologically better
>>117447
>Some members of Congress want to put a national park on the moon
Wouldn't that mean officially declaring the moon, or part of it, United States territory? That opens up a whole new can of worms.
I can't believe these kinds of shitheads get elected.
>Some members of Congress want to put a national park on the moon
Wouldn't that mean officially declaring the moon, or part of it, United States territory? That opens up a whole new can of worms.
I can't believe these kinds of shitheads get elected.
>>117450
Who could even go to the park? Isn’t the point of a park preserving it for human enjoyment? Otherwise it would be more like a wildlife reserve, without the… I don’t know… the WILDLIFE. Us normal people will never afford space travels for quite some time, so why not get some use out of that sweet sweet acreage?
Who could even go to the park? Isn’t the point of a park preserving it for human enjoyment? Otherwise it would be more like a wildlife reserve, without the… I don’t know… the WILDLIFE. Us normal people will never afford space travels for quite some time, so why not get some use out of that sweet sweet acreage?
>>117447
I can understand wanting to protect an important and historical site, but the entire thing? That's a real stretch.
Also,
>life on mars
I can understand wanting to protect an important and historical site, but the entire thing? That's a real stretch.
Also,
>life on mars
>>117426
>cover the planets and moons out there in power stations
And just how do you imagine we'll get the power from there to here?
>cover the planets and moons out there in power stations
And just how do you imagine we'll get the power from there to here?
>>117558
It would be simpler by far to just get our shit in order and make nuclear fusion a reality, that way we only need to mine the solar system for helium 3.
It would be simpler by far to just get our shit in order and make nuclear fusion a reality, that way we only need to mine the solar system for helium 3.
>>117563
That would make the space shuttle actually useful and maybe get improvements to its design. Nothing like making a new space freight industry, it can lay the ground works for all kinds of technological improvements to get stuff from point a to point b faster.
That would make the space shuttle actually useful and maybe get improvements to its design. Nothing like making a new space freight industry, it can lay the ground works for all kinds of technological improvements to get stuff from point a to point b faster.
>>117563
I hope you're not pretending to be retarded. Fusion means we do not have to worry about building stations on Earth, as they are largely non-toxic to the environment. There would literally be no cause for building them offworld aside from powering mining equipment. You don't even need helium 3 really, you can just put literally water in it and it produces power.
I hope you're not pretending to be retarded. Fusion means we do not have to worry about building stations on Earth, as they are largely non-toxic to the environment. There would literally be no cause for building them offworld aside from powering mining equipment. You don't even need helium 3 really, you can just put literally water in it and it produces power.
>>117572
solar panels are pretty stupid, tbh. Besides, if we really want to take full advantage of the sun's output, wouldn't it be a better idea to just wait until we can build a dyson sphere?
solar panels are pretty stupid, tbh. Besides, if we really want to take full advantage of the sun's output, wouldn't it be a better idea to just wait until we can build a dyson sphere?
>>117578
Again, power transmission, and there's pretty much no point since fusion is essentially the same thing and is far more cost effective, as opposed to literally stripping several star systems entirely of every conceivable material just to build the shell, that's to say nothing of maintaining it.
The only reason to build a Dyson Sphere is to stroke your cultural ego.
Again, power transmission, and there's pretty much no point since fusion is essentially the same thing and is far more cost effective, as opposed to literally stripping several star systems entirely of every conceivable material just to build the shell, that's to say nothing of maintaining it.
The only reason to build a Dyson Sphere is to stroke your cultural ego.
>>117582
but is stroking your cultural ego really so bad? I wouldn't expect you to know since your culture doesn't have anything to flaunt, but it's something to think about.:^)
but is stroking your cultural ego really so bad? I wouldn't expect you to know since your culture doesn't have anything to flaunt, but it's something to think about.:^)
>>117585
Just because it needs mentioning, here's a few reasons why solar panels suck whale tits.
>Solar panels are constructed using highly toxic materials such as Cadmium Indium Gallium (Di)selenide, Silicon Tetrachloride, Copper Indium Selenide and Cadmium Telluride.
>Have an effective lifespan of 20 years due to the fact that a panel loses 1% power efficiency per year and 80% efficiency is balls.
>Generates negligible energy versus production/disposal cost.
>Can be defeated by a cloudy day.
Just because it needs mentioning, here's a few reasons why solar panels suck whale tits.
>Solar panels are constructed using highly toxic materials such as Cadmium Indium Gallium (Di)selenide, Silicon Tetrachloride, Copper Indium Selenide and Cadmium Telluride.
>Have an effective lifespan of 20 years due to the fact that a panel loses 1% power efficiency per year and 80% efficiency is balls.
>Generates negligible energy versus production/disposal cost.
>Can be defeated by a cloudy day.
>>117590
I know. I’m not for them, just wanted to share a crappy meme with you. It’s all in good fun.
I know. I’m not for them, just wanted to share a crappy meme with you. It’s all in good fun.
>>117592
>better things to do with those resources than stroke your space penis
it's like you don't even want to have fun with being a hyper-advanced species with fuck-all to do!
>better things to do with those resources than stroke your space penis
it's like you don't even want to have fun with being a hyper-advanced species with fuck-all to do!
>>117597
fuck, misread again. But seriously, what's a bigger and better "fuck you" to mother nature than taking one of the most powerful single bodies in the universe and boxing it inside a nice little metal ball?
fuck, misread again. But seriously, what's a bigger and better "fuck you" to mother nature than taking one of the most powerful single bodies in the universe and boxing it inside a nice little metal ball?
>>117592
Why limit fusion to only here on earth? Make fusion stations everywhere, like gas stations. Fill up your space freighters carrying equipment for the mining platforms for the furthering of science and capitalism!
Why limit fusion to only here on earth? Make fusion stations everywhere, like gas stations. Fill up your space freighters carrying equipment for the mining platforms for the furthering of science and capitalism!
>>117599
>Giant space gun
>Artificial planet
>Artificial planet, but ring shaped
>Stupidly sized flagship
Take your pick really. It's also worth noting that a Dyson Sphere is practically impossible to build without an ultra light, ultra durable material that you can produce in astronomical quantities, without which it would simply collapse in on itself as it generates its own gravitational field.
Build a ringworld, at least you can live on those.
>>117601
That's the idea, since shackling a star is just a fusion reactor, but bigger, it's just more practical to build a billion reactors all over the place and avoid having to maintain a giant one and go through the hassle of transmitting that power to where it's needed. Unless our entire civilisation develops cultural autism and decides to build one we can live in and put an actual space wall between us and the rest of the universe.
>Giant space gun
>Artificial planet
>Artificial planet, but ring shaped
>Stupidly sized flagship
Take your pick really. It's also worth noting that a Dyson Sphere is practically impossible to build without an ultra light, ultra durable material that you can produce in astronomical quantities, without which it would simply collapse in on itself as it generates its own gravitational field.
Build a ringworld, at least you can live on those.
>>117601
That's the idea, since shackling a star is just a fusion reactor, but bigger, it's just more practical to build a billion reactors all over the place and avoid having to maintain a giant one and go through the hassle of transmitting that power to where it's needed. Unless our entire civilisation develops cultural autism and decides to build one we can live in and put an actual space wall between us and the rest of the universe.
>>117603
but what if we get so stupidly advanced that we can create a dyson shell around a dwarf star and convert that into a stupidly sized flagship with giant space guns?
but what if we get so stupidly advanced that we can create a dyson shell around a dwarf star and convert that into a stupidly sized flagship with giant space guns?
>>117605
Aliens not existing is a statistical impossibility, though it's possible we're one of the first to make it this far. God damn it all, there had better be aliens to pay for the space wall or words will be had.
Aliens not existing is a statistical impossibility, though it's possible we're one of the first to make it this far. God damn it all, there had better be aliens to pay for the space wall or words will be had.
>>117612
It’s not impossible if the earth is the only planet to have life. Just a thought. If my beliefs are correct, which I can’t prove it just my belief, a Creator must have made us here. Random chance doesn’t seem to work in my opinion, to explain everything we see.
But if there are some, it won’t be that bad. We just got to keep the jews away from them. Unless they are like jews… space jews… we may be screwed if that’s how it turns out.
It’s not impossible if the earth is the only planet to have life. Just a thought. If my beliefs are correct, which I can’t prove it just my belief, a Creator must have made us here. Random chance doesn’t seem to work in my opinion, to explain everything we see.
But if there are some, it won’t be that bad. We just got to keep the jews away from them. Unless they are like jews… space jews… we may be screwed if that’s how it turns out.
>>117615
throw them in the space ovens! if that doesn't work, we do it the old-fashioned way. relativistic planet-busting antimatter nukes.
throw them in the space ovens! if that doesn't work, we do it the old-fashioned way. relativistic planet-busting antimatter nukes.
>>117419
Nuke plant is awesome. Shit get things done. And on the plus side, if the far-left hates it, it must be good.
Nuke plant is awesome. Shit get things done. And on the plus side, if the far-left hates it, it must be good.
it's the best energy available, in terms of quantity, cost and ecology, right behind hydroelectric dams, which can use a river and create a lake and a whole ecosystem for a whole county/region.
third would be solar panels, which are limited. industrial production of these, chemicals, rare earths, toxic waste, also batteries for storage of solar energy is a timebomb, just like manufacturing LCDs, there's nothing green about this shit despite the "certified EPA" sticker.
Nuclear waste is the only problem, but it's a false one. Uranium rods and materials can be buried underground, back in the mines we extracted it from, sealed in graphite containers, or recycled.
There's enough uranium in the world, for at least the next 5,000 years of actual energy production, if we all used classic fission powerplants. and we are only scratching the earth's crust.
People are afraid of what would happen if an accident happened. It takes efforts to commit a reactor to go in a out of control chain reaction, but would not happen if you hired nuclear physicists to be in charge of this energy, who knows the behavior and how to anticipate it.
Again nothing can prevent humans to be complete cunts, hence nothing wrong against installing a nuclear powerplant far away from populated areas. The Nevada's test site is more radioactive and contaminated, it's 20 times worse than the Chernobyl-Pripyiat region in Ukraine. These areas are prefferable to install nuclear facilities and you have plenty.
Even if a disaster happens, it might contaminate like 100 square kilometers, as shown with Chernobyl. This is a disaster, BUT in comparison:
The actual coal production and fuel based powerplants that remains in use rejects carbon dioxide and other combustion gas, cancerogen kind, they are placed nearby the populated areas. they are producing a worse effect everyday as if there was one Chernobyl catastrophe per year. And here, Fukushima's disaster is cat's piss in comparison.
One clear thing that must be fought, it's fossil fuels. It's a waste of energy, a waste of performance per gram, it's toxic, it originates from nations in conflict most of the time, profits to the worst states.
so in the aspects of
- geostrategy
- ecology
- resources
- economy
- geopolitics
- technology
- rentability
nuclear energy wins. and we need to wait for the third gen, thermonuclear power which will guarantee a much longer lifespan and production, without any waste.
third would be solar panels, which are limited. industrial production of these, chemicals, rare earths, toxic waste, also batteries for storage of solar energy is a timebomb, just like manufacturing LCDs, there's nothing green about this shit despite the "certified EPA" sticker.
Nuclear waste is the only problem, but it's a false one. Uranium rods and materials can be buried underground, back in the mines we extracted it from, sealed in graphite containers, or recycled.
There's enough uranium in the world, for at least the next 5,000 years of actual energy production, if we all used classic fission powerplants. and we are only scratching the earth's crust.
People are afraid of what would happen if an accident happened. It takes efforts to commit a reactor to go in a out of control chain reaction, but would not happen if you hired nuclear physicists to be in charge of this energy, who knows the behavior and how to anticipate it.
Again nothing can prevent humans to be complete cunts, hence nothing wrong against installing a nuclear powerplant far away from populated areas. The Nevada's test site is more radioactive and contaminated, it's 20 times worse than the Chernobyl-Pripyiat region in Ukraine. These areas are prefferable to install nuclear facilities and you have plenty.
Even if a disaster happens, it might contaminate like 100 square kilometers, as shown with Chernobyl. This is a disaster, BUT in comparison:
The actual coal production and fuel based powerplants that remains in use rejects carbon dioxide and other combustion gas, cancerogen kind, they are placed nearby the populated areas. they are producing a worse effect everyday as if there was one Chernobyl catastrophe per year. And here, Fukushima's disaster is cat's piss in comparison.
One clear thing that must be fought, it's fossil fuels. It's a waste of energy, a waste of performance per gram, it's toxic, it originates from nations in conflict most of the time, profits to the worst states.
so in the aspects of
- geostrategy
- ecology
- resources
- economy
- geopolitics
- technology
- rentability
nuclear energy wins. and we need to wait for the third gen, thermonuclear power which will guarantee a much longer lifespan and production, without any waste.
53 replies | 6 files | 1 UUIDs | Archived