Anon questions our energy sector

"are we retarded?" yes, Trump got re-elected, which is proof most of us really are retarded. I'm pro nuclear, just not the form we widely use now, and not in the hands of retarded people. And again, most of us clearly are, and one of the worst is going to be president, again.

So I think the best thing we could do is start a nuclear war which will wipe out the human race. Nature will hopefully recover in about 100.000 to 1 million years. Hopefully dolphins will develop less retarded then us dumb monkeys.

Is it 3 mile island but with a fail safe reactor? Like the ones that don't use fission (lol).

The year is 2289.

We know how Dyson spheres work

That star is just literally free energy

But we blew up a solar system and wiped out a developing race one time and we stopped using it.

Imagine if hunters had stopped using fire?!?

Fukushima showed us the truth, Nuclear Safety is incompatible with capitalism. I don't care to find out what other time bombs we build into future plants.

Just because burning fossil fuels is bad doesn't magically make nuclear good, or somehow no big deal. The chance for a catastrophic accident mentioned in the meme is only one drawback (which is bad enough--get real, denial is not a strategy here). Just a few other issues:

• the problem of what to do with the waste: no permanent solutions have yet been implemented and we've been using costly-to-maintain "temporary" methods for decades. Not to mention the thermal water pollution to aquatic ecosystems

• the enormously out of proportion up front costs to construct the plants, and higher ongoing operation and maintenance costs due to safety risks in proportion to amount of power generated

• the fact that uranium is also a limited resource that has to be mined like other ores, with all the environmental negatives of that, which then has to go through a lot of processing involving various mechanics and chemicals just to make it usable as fuel.

Anyway I'm not going to try and go into more detail on a forum post, but all this advocacy for a very problematic method of producing power as if it's a simple solution to our problems is kind of irritating. At least I hope the above shows we should stop pretending it's "clean energy". We should be focusing on developing renewable and sustainable energy systems.

TBF a nuclear incident is not like burning just one house down. It’s burning down the whole city and making it unusable for a decade or ten.

OUR Energy Sector...?

That is an extreme over simplification of a very complicated subject, it's never that simple.

Having said that: yeah. It was stupid to stop using nuclear energy

Okay but why use a slur to make a point

He should, reason they ditched them for coal and gas was because big daddy Exxon and BP are pushing for it so they don't go out of bussiness. FUCK BP AND EXXON!

Do I sit out on the nuclear ralley, hmmm

It's sad that the coal lobby has convinced so many people that the most reliable clean energy source we've ever discovered is somehow bad.

I hate this thread.

there are millions being poured into propaganda against using anything but fossil fuels, much of it stems from there. But i wonder if its better this way or the alternative way where we would use more nuclear energy but since there would be so much money to be made, the rich would use their money to make all safety regulations null. I wish we could just get rid of the source problem.

Anon is dumb. Anon forgets the nuclear waste. Anon also forgets that the plants for the magical rocks are extremely expensive. So much that energy won by these rocks is more expensive than wind energy and any other renewable.

. Don't feed the troll 💩

There is a huge lobby of pro-nuclear think tanks who try to astroturf pro-nuclear shit onto social media. We, scientifically literate, rational people, need to counteract these harmful narratives with some facts.

FACT: Renewable sources of energy are as cheap or cheaper per kwh than nuclear.

FACT: Renewables are faster to provision than nuclear.

FACT: Renewables are as clean, or cleaner, than nuclear.

FACT: Renewables are much more flexible and responsive to energy fluctuations than nuclear.

FACT: Renewables will only get cheaper. Nuclear will only get more expensive, because uranium mining will get harder and harder as we deplete easily accessible sources.

What if fire burned down everything in a 10 km radius when there's not enough water around the specific area the fire was ignited at?

Funny how nuclear power plants are taboo, but building thousands of nuclear warheads all over the globe is no issue.

I feel this is all moot. When we run out of fossil fuels and go off the energy cliff, the nuclear facilities will basically build themselves, assuming there will be anyone around that will even know how to build a nuclear reactor

Gotta be on 4chan to equate a nuclear meltdown with a person's hut catching on fire.

But if the magic rocks (facility) cost more than creating energy from the water the magic rocks need for cooling...

Burning down your house doesn't poison people thousands of years later, so it's not a perfect analogy.

Plus we have magic mirrors and magic fans that do the same thing as the magic rocks just way cheaper.

Well, you see, the "Anti Magic Rock" Lobby has immense amount of power because of the money of the still lucrative "burning stuff and pollute everything" business.

Paraphrased but this is right.

And the people were taught to talk about the horrible nuclear accidents that killed a few but completely glance over the unimaginable millions perished in the name of oil, mustn't even mention the mass extinction events we launched with oil.

We even spread exaggerated bullshit about radiation mutation (wtf? thats superhero comic books fiction!!) and cancer rates (only one really), ignoring how much overwhelmingly more of the both we get from fossil fuel products.

We are like prehistoric people going extinct bcs of the tales how generations ago someone burned down their house so fire bad. Well, actually not like that - we are taking with us a lot of species & entire ecosystems too.

You're right to reject the logic behind that because it's nonsense. Its not making sense to them because they still presume some kind of good faith when it come to these sorts of things.

The reason we haven't built more nuclear power stations is because oil, gas and coal companies will make less money, if we build more nuclear power stations.

They have the means, the motive and they have a well recorded history of being that cartoonishly villainous. Nothing else makes sense.

The problem isn't that they exploded one time. The problem is that that one explosion is still happening and likely will be for quite a while.

On the other hand, modern rock exploding plant designs are so much better that it's very unlikely to repeat itself, so there's that.

One time? Wikipedia says over 100 serious incidents and lists about 30 of them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents&wprov=rarw1

It's fine if you like nuclear, just don't try and claim it was one time. It poses serious risk and should be treated as such.

Not even a joke, that's a very concise way to put the argument.

No it's about nuclear waste and where to store it, it's about how expensive it is to build a nuclear power plant (bc of regulations so they don't goo boom) and it's about how much you have to subsidize it to make the electricity it produces affordable at all. Economically it's just not worth it. Renewables are just WAY cheaper.

I always wonder where we would actually be at as a civilization if it weren't for fuckass lobbyists and money hoarding greedy assholes. This is a perfect example. If we'd learned from our mistakes and actually improved on nuclear energy there's no telling where we'd be at this point.

Step 1: Get magic rocks.

Step 2: Now design the rest of the nuclear reactor.

"Right in the heart of it is an itty bitty windmill and that just don't sit right with me" - That one cousin at Thanksgiving

Slow, expensive, riddeled with corruption, long ago surpassed by renewables. Why should we use it?

arent we out of uranium by 2040 anyway? op can have our "nucular" waste anytime. why even waste time on a resource that we cant use in 15 yrs from now? super stupid.

For huge countries as like the US: Maybe. You have enough space to also store the trash somewhere for thousands of years.

For small countries, like most of Europe, where the population density is way higher: hard pass.

Anon is so dense that he will surpass the Poincaré recurrence time of the Universe, and will exist forever. This also means that for every iteration of the current universe he passes through, another iteration of anon will be produced, such that there will eventually be enough idiot anons to form its own entire universe.

Anon is infinitely and eternally stupid.