Upload
Login or register
x

The power of the future

 
The power of the future. And before anyone loses their about it, I know there are people that support this but a rather massive amount of people in the world ar

And before anyone loses their **** about it, I know there are people that support this but a rather massive amount of people in the world are against Nuclear. so while it might be popular with educated people, most people have their heads in their ass about Nuclear

And before the nuclear waste ******** en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor the IFR produces little if any radioactive waste and can use currently stored radioactive waste to produce power, its also EXTREMELY safe

We need reactors to power starships damn it!

I THAT THE WORLD NEWS
TO SM TUBE MIT WINE
Era 'tullio'.
...
+825
Views: 34042
Favorited: 37
Submitted: 07/18/2015
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to arkis

Comments(453):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
12345>>> 
[ 453 comments ]
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
108 comments displayed.
Reply
+34
User avatar #274 - arkis [OP]ONLINE (07/18/2015) [+] (7 replies)
stickied by arkis
The Integral Fast Reactor Since I'm seen a lot of the same mind set about how reactors are dangerous I'm posting this, please give it a look before you talk about who reactors are all dangerous.
Reply
+351
User avatar #1 - peanutsaurusrex (07/18/2015) [-]
The correct use of a meme
I like it

But I say we use both.
Punk
Reply
-7
User avatar #183 to #1 - bjornkrage ONLINE (07/18/2015) [-]
uh what. I'm pretty sure most people on the internet agree about nuclear energy. This is "unpopular" opinion puffin, not "circlejerk fowl"
Reply
+3
#205 to #183 - anon (07/18/2015) [-]
Read the description :
Reply
+5
#326 to #183 - mikethemerciless (07/19/2015) [-]
Nuclear power is a very unpopular decision.
Seriously, go anywhere and ask a random group of people about it.
Just because it is popular on here does not mean it is popular in real life.
fagget.
Reply
-1
User avatar #438 to #326 - cabbagemayhem ONLINE (07/19/2015) [-]
It wasn't posted in the real world, it was posted here. Meme was used incorrectly. Learn your **** , faggot.
Reply
-1
#439 to #438 - mikethemerciless (07/19/2015) [-]
Last I checked, this IS part of the world, we are a community, even if it's online, it's not something in our heads, we are people with opinions, and while nuclear energy may be considered awesome in our community, it is not always so in other communities.
One last time: We are all a part of the world.
Reply
-1
#440 to #439 - mikethemerciless (07/19/2015) [-]
Faggit
Reply
0
#191 to #1 - jwong (07/18/2015) [-]
I would just like to mention that Wind and Solar currently require about the same amount of energy to make as they will ever produce.
Reply
+6
User avatar #265 to #191 - ilovehitler (07/18/2015) [-]
******** . I see **** like this www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150717104920.htm every other week. Give me some sources that agree with you.
Reply
+1
User avatar #387 to #265 - themajesticsnail (07/19/2015) [-]
Wait, what the **** , modern solar cells have an efficiency of nearly 25% of usable electric energy per square surface, and some make it to 30 and 40 using stirling engines. Your source doesn't specify nothing like that it just says "10 times more".
More than what?

Don't you have any other source?
Reply
0
#441 to #265 - jwong (07/19/2015) [-]
Well I like that solar works better then I thought but could you give me more then "very promising prototype"
Reply
+3
User avatar #268 to #1 - scandaldog (07/18/2015) [-]
yeah! and attach solar panels and wind farms to the nuclear plant to save space
Reply
+6
User avatar #264 to #1 - letting (07/18/2015) [-]
Agreed. Why limit ourselves to one source of renewable energy?

I'm ******* pissed that we're still using **** like coal like it's ******* 1910 or some **** . It's stupid, it's the 21st century, why are we so far behind?
Reply
+14
User avatar #143 to #1 - atoma (07/18/2015) [-]
Indeed, nuclear reactors on spaceships and solar panels on earth.
Reply
+8
#237 to #143 - boomerpyro (07/18/2015) [-]
the earth on a spaceship and solar panels on nuclear reactors
Reply
+79
#66 - themoderguy (07/18/2015) [-]
it just sucks that the majority of people still think nuclear power is this dangerous thing that spews massive amounts of toxins and **** into the air, when in reality its one of the most safest forms of power in the world. more people are damaged by wind turbine failures than unpreventable nuclear disasters (by unpreventable i mean **** like 福島 (fukushima, i'm learning mango runes) were they knew about the problem and tried solving but could not of possibly known that several major disaster would happen at the same time, even then nobody died in the 福島 disaster . Chernobyl was caused by an egotistic ******** that wanted to go home early ) and all those dickheads who see the iconic thermal tower and think its spewing about nuclear waste and **** when in reality its just ******* steam are retards
it just sucks that the majority of people still think nuclear power is this dangerous thing that spews massive amounts of toxins and **** into the air, when in reality its one of the most safest forms of power in the world. more people are damaged by wind turbine failures than unpreventable nuclear disasters (by unpreventable i mean **** like 福島 (fukushima, i'm learning mango runes) were they knew about the problem and tried solving but could not of possibly known that several major disaster would happen at the same time, even then nobody died in the 福島 disaster . Chernobyl was caused by an egotistic ******** that wanted to go home early ) and all those dickheads who see the iconic thermal tower and think its spewing about nuclear waste and **** when in reality its just ******* steam are retards
Reply
-5
#71 to #66 - anon (07/18/2015) [-]
Actually, two unidentifiable bodies were found.
Reply
+23
User avatar #73 to #71 - themoderguy (07/18/2015) [-]
they were killed by the tsunami
Reply
0
User avatar #407 to #66 - loganmadder (07/19/2015) [-]
How does nuclear energy even work? I remember that all the steam is because the water is cooling down some nuclear thing so it doesn't explode but I am too lazy to google
Reply
+1
#411 to #407 - magneticmonopole (07/19/2015) [-]
Inside a nuclear reactor is uranium, when uranium decays it releases neutrons that can be absorbed by other uranium nuclei, when this happens it causes the uranium nuclei to decay (fission) and when that happens the "fission products" or decay products shoot off in different directions and interact with their surrounds releasing heat which is absorbed by water (the water also interacts with the neutrons to slow them down to be absorbed by the uranium, it only likes slow neutrons).

Anyway this water heats up and creates steam, that steam then drives turbines exactly the same way as a coal fired power plant. After the steam has driven the turbines it is still in a gas phase (i.e. steam) and has to be returned back to liquid as tehe reactor vessel needs liquid not steam, if you put steam in there you can get runaway effects that leads to explosions... primarily the creation of hydrogen gas from interacting with the coating on the fuel (uranium).

Anyway the steam you see coming from the cooling towers is not the same water that has come from the reactor, the water from the reactor is in a closed loop and near the base of the towers is a giant ring of what basically looks like your cars radiator and that radiator is part of the reactor loop, then water from the tower falls over that to cool it.

That's kind of the simple and fast version.
Reply
0
User avatar #413 to #411 - loganmadder (07/19/2015) [-]
>simple
>fast
I'm too tired then
Reply
+1
User avatar #171 to #66 - Dropkicksxxx (07/18/2015) [-]
No **** on the failing wind turbine bit. We had one close to my house that the brake on it malfunctioned and it sped up until it threw couple hundred pound chunks of it all over the field, had that been near homes they would have been ****** . Not to mention they make a horrible noise that makes hunting in all of my old spots almost impossible.
Reply
+2
User avatar #148 to #66 - crazylance (07/18/2015) [-]
Didn't Chernobyl happen because they wanted to test a new system and it failed in one of the cycles?
Reply
+16
User avatar #174 to #148 - shadowknife (07/18/2015) [-]
it was a combination of testing, poorly trained people, and a poorly designed reactor.

the head honchos wanted to see if the reactor could power itself and put out power as well so they decided to power it down prepare the reactor for the required tests then power it back up for them. the people there did not power down the reactor properly and it began to over heat. it went super critical and when they tried to engage safety measures, found that the safety measures were warped from the heat and were unable to work. the heat made far too much steam which blew the top off of it (which was not reinforced well enough due to being cheap) and proceeded to blow radioactive isotopes all over the place.

-source a prof i had who was a retired nuclear chemist and a leader in his field when he was working
Reply
0
User avatar #424 to #174 - hellbentcrusade (07/19/2015) [-]
Chernobyl had a positive coefficient for reactivity, correct?
Reply
0
User avatar #452 to #424 - shadowknife (07/20/2015) [-]
It had a dangerously high positive coefficent, so yes.
Reply
+1
User avatar #373 to #148 - spoperman (07/19/2015) [-]
What shadowknife said. Also, just to add, on top of the ****** reactor thing, the Chernobyl reactors were different from normal reactors. They required the Cooling rods to be pushed in from the side, whereas a normal reactor is pushed from the top. The reason this is important, in an emergency, the coolant rods can be dropped straight down in a normal reactor. Because of how ******* **** the Chernobyl reactor was, the rods had to be pushed in using a hydraulic device. Which requires power, and is prone to failure in an emergency. Guess what happened?

**** failed, reactor was all like **** you guys im out
Guys were like no reactor don't go
Reactor went all like nuh uh, im tired of this **** , blew up and **** happened
Reactor starts slowly burning through ground
Guys are all still like no pls
Reply
+2
User avatar #301 to #66 - catpisseverdeen (07/19/2015) [-]
Чорнобиль (Cheeki Breeki runes for Chernobyl) was held together with tooth picks and bubblegum. God damn Commie's, ruining nuclear power for the rest of us.
Reply
+5
#178 to #66 - dankrolls ONLINE (07/18/2015) [-]
But what about all of that monoxide-dihydrate. Would you give your kids this?
Reply
0
User avatar #182 to #178 - tehubernation (07/18/2015) [-]
I heard aqueous dihydrogen monoxide is even more deadly. Apparently all of earth's water supply is contaminated by this stuff.
Reply
+3
User avatar #225 to #182 - AnomynousUser ONLINE (07/18/2015) [-]
Well, 100% of everyone who drank it died in their lives. Coincidence? I think not.
Reply
0
#376 to #225 - randaxkull (07/19/2015) [-]
Well, I haven't died from it yet... but I have been diagnosed with diaphoresis and the micturation has been off the scale.
Reply
0
User avatar #380 to #376 - AnomynousUser ONLINE (07/19/2015) [-]
I'd recommend trying to cut it out of your diet, but it is terrible addictive. I've heard of deadly consequences from quitting after being addicted for any amount of time.
Reply
+1
User avatar #257 to #182 - tehubernation (07/18/2015) [-]
capslockwut
Reply
+1
#196 to #182 - dankrolls ONLINE (07/18/2015) [-]
I bet it all comes from that "nuclear power" thingy
Reply
+6
User avatar #218 to #66 - gravysponge (07/18/2015) [-]
Don't forget that almost all nuclear accidents occur in aging and outdated facilities.

Modern reactor designs aren't just cheaper and more powerful, they're also much MUCH safer than nuclear reactors used to be, and even the old ones aren't as bad as anti nuclear people make them out to be.
Reply
+20
User avatar #2 - malachitecobra (07/18/2015) [-]
*muffled "cheeki breeki" in the distance*
get out of here stalker
Reply
+4
#252 to #75 - brobafett (07/18/2015) [-]
>implying fallout has anything to do with going nuclear
Reply
0
#383 to #252 - yellowcardraiden (07/19/2015) [-]
******* loved the Nuclear trailer, but got to say, the Elegia trailer was ******* amazing.
Reply
0
User avatar #448 to #383 - brobafett (07/19/2015) [-]
Eh, spoiled too much. I loved it, but it did pretty much confirm skull face is killed half way through the game and pretty much haunts Big bosses mind.
Reply
+42
#41 - icameforthewut (07/18/2015) [-]
I love that game!
Reply
+12
#167 - logicisneigh (07/18/2015) [-]
Mfw " **** solar energy"
Mfw " **** solar energy"
Reply
+22
#30 - anon (07/18/2015) [-]
**anonymous used "*roll picture*"****anonymous rolled image** <-- Nope, we should harness the power of this.
**anonymous used "*roll picture*"**
**anonymous rolled image** <-- Nope, we should harness the power of this.
Reply
+7
#31 to #30 - anon (07/18/2015) [-]
I... rolled interspecies yaoi?
Reply
+3
User avatar #32 to #31 - arkis [OP]ONLINE (07/18/2015) [-]
Huey Lewis - The Power Of Love you mean this power?
Reply
+11
#112 - concetrationcamp (07/18/2015) [-]
> if you ask people if they want nuclear power, most of them will say YES

> but if you want to ask the same people if they want to live next to a power plant
they will say **** NO, ARE YOU CRAZY?
Reply
+1
#158 to #112 - jimmyfofibby (07/18/2015) [-]
Actually I like living next to a nuclear power plant.
Reply
+1
#214 to #112 - anon (07/18/2015) [-]
educated people know that the risks are negligible.
there are just too few educated people
Reply
+4
#164 to #112 - endospore (07/18/2015) [-]
Yeah, and there totally wasn't a **** storm when MA tried building a wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod dozens of miles from where anyone lives. People don't want to live next to ANYTHING other than other people. They don't even want to look at things that aren't houses.
Reply
+1
#276 to #164 - anon (07/18/2015) [-]
Who says I want to live next to other people?
Reply
+9
User avatar #113 to #112 - discord (07/18/2015) [-]
no **** man? power plants, regardless of what type, drop property value. Who would want to live in the same area as a giant ******* eyesore?
Reply
+9
User avatar #127 to #112 - thechosentroll (07/18/2015) [-]
That's mostly because power plants tend to be in the ******* industrial area of the city, where no one wants to live anyway. No one builds a power plant in the middle of the ******* city. This isn't the Sims.
Reply
+8
User avatar #48 - theshinypen (07/18/2015) [-]
What about solar winds?
Reply
+15
#118 - donfailed ONLINE (07/18/2015) [-]
Reply
+18
#131 - thechosentroll (07/18/2015) [-]
What pisses me off about the whole nuclear power thing is the main reasons people are against it is Chernobyl and Fukushima. Thousands of power plants around the planet have been working flawlessly for decades, but nooooooooooooo "nuclear power is unsafe" because a poorly maintained soviet powerplant and a powerplant that was build by asian jews blew up, all nuclear power is unsafe. Seriously, look that **** up. Remember how everyone praised the japanese for dealing with Fukushima so efficiently? They did so well, because they knew it was going to happen. The reason it was build on the side of the island where tsunamis hit and not on the safer side, is because the land values there were really low, because of the threat of tsunamis. They jewed out and took a risk in order to save money. That's why people were expecting an earthquake or tsunami to **** that power plant up since day 1. I wouldn't even call it an accident.
Reply
-1
#208 to #131 - tristmilt (07/18/2015) [-]
The issue isnt that only two places blew up. the issue is that when Chernobyl went down, the death toll hit the millions.
Reply
+5
User avatar #213 to #208 - thechosentroll (07/18/2015) [-]
The only reason it did was because the soviet government (and many others) tried to keep it a secret as long as possible and prevent any panic. If the people had been evacuated, the death toll wouldn't have been anywhere near as high. The whole thing was just a demonstration of the USSRs' incompetence, not the quality of nuclear power.
Reply
-1
#224 to #213 - tristmilt (07/18/2015) [-]
And to this date has an Exclusion zone of 2 600km3 where no one is aloud to enter.



Now imagine the same circumstance in say.... Guangdong, China where the population is over 100 million people
Reply
+4
User avatar #228 to #224 - thechosentroll (07/18/2015) [-]
You do realize that nuclear reactor technology and safety has come a long way since then and even if something like that happened, it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad, right? Back then, they had no ******* idea what to do if a nuclear reactor blew up.
Reply
-2
#232 to #228 - tristmilt (07/18/2015) [-]
Die, was the most popular reaction.
Reply
+2
User avatar #235 to #232 - thechosentroll (07/18/2015) [-]
That's what I ******* said, you ******* . They didn't know how to react, so people died. Now we know how to react, so people won't die. Do you know how many of the people working at Fukushima died? None. 0. Nill. All the casualties were people cleaning up the debris and even then, it was only just over 100 casualties. More people die in a plane crash and those happen way more often than goddamn nuclear meltdowns.
Reply
-7
#239 to #235 - tristmilt (07/18/2015) [-]
So we've got one power plant with a million casualties and thousands of acres of quarantined land. and one with 100 casualties. I'm not particularly fond of those odds.

Not to mention you are implying that the preceding circumstances to both events were identical. You are comparing apples to oranges here, hun.
Reply
+3
User avatar #240 to #239 - thechosentroll (07/18/2015) [-]
Are you actively trying to act like an idiot right now? Because if you are, I applaud you. If not, please go outside and plant a tree to compensate for all the oxygen you're wasting, because dear mother of **** , what you just said is so stupid I can't even come up with an insult worthy of your idiocy.
Reply
-3
#242 to #240 - tristmilt (07/18/2015) [-]
That's because you apparently have this stupid predisposition that all discussions require insults.
Reply
+1
User avatar #246 to #242 - thechosentroll (07/18/2015) [-]
I also have the predisposition that people are supposed to at least read what you're saying. You have been repeating the same damn thing over and over again, saying nothing new. I keep explaining why the thing you're saying is stupid, but you keep doing it anyway. I explained to you why it's now impossible for the Chernobyl incident to happen a second time and you keep telling me we shouldn't be using nuclear power, because of the Chernobyl incident. Think for a second. THINK!
Reply
-3
#249 to #246 - tristmilt (07/18/2015) [-]
I seem to be missing the part where i said "don't use nuclear power"


Tip: Know what a predisposition is, BEFORE you use it in a sentence
Reply
+1
User avatar #253 to #249 - thechosentroll (07/18/2015) [-]
You sort of implied it. OK, fine, whatever. Let's say that's not your point. What is? What are you trying to say?

And I know what a goddamn predisposition is. It means I assume certain things by default, such as that the person I'm discussing things with is supposed to actually hear what I'm saying.
Reply
-3
#256 to #253 - tristmilt (07/18/2015) [-]
I was attempting to help shed some light on the side of the dispute you seem to not understand.

A predisposition is is something that you DO by default. Say giving yourself insulin for your diabetes, You can have a predisposition that you assume certain things, as you stated in #253, but you cant predispose that other people will do things. like you worded in #246
Reply
0
User avatar #261 to #256 - thechosentroll (07/18/2015) [-]
I understand the side completely, I just ignore it, because it's the side that everyone and their grandmother has talked about. Do I have to explain that the Chernobyl incident was bad? Do I have to explain that the Holocaust was bad? Do I have to explain that the bubonic plague was bad? No, because everyone already knows those things. I'm trying to explain the side that people seem to not understand. Namely, that an incident like those are extremely rare, but we also know how to properly deal with them now, so they're nowhere near as bad. That is something people don't know. You have no idea how many people I've spoken to, who think if you live within 10km or a nuclear power plant, you're going to grow a third leg or some **** . These are the same people who think the steam coming from the reactor coolers is actually radioactive smoke that's going to kill everything. Because of people like those, nuclear plants around the world are being closed and replaced with coal power plants, because the idiots think they're helping the environment that way, when in fact they're harming it even more. That's why I try to explain why nuclear power is safe these days.
Reply
+1
User avatar #216 to #208 - thechosentroll (07/18/2015) [-]
Also, the statistic is grossly inflated by the fact that after the accident if anyone died of cancer or just some random disease that wasn't painfully obvious, they'd say it was radiation poisoning, so they don't have to investigate anything or do more paperwork. It's the same reason people think Japan has absurd suicide rates, when in reality it's just their lazy police force labeling murders as suicides, because they don't want to waste time and resources investigating them.
Reply
0
#211 to #208 - tristmilt (07/18/2015) [-]
despite only having 14 000 people living in the immediate vicinity.
Reply
+1
#207 to #131 - anon (07/18/2015) [-]
The worst thing is that 300 people died in a mining accident in Turkey in 2011 (I think it was 2011) and only an estimated 150 will die from cancer after Fukushima.
Reply
0
User avatar #263 to #207 - GmCity ONLINE (07/18/2015) [-]
I think you are thinking about this one from last year.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soma_mine_disaster
Reply
+1
User avatar #325 to #131 - rubixium (07/19/2015) [-]
the issue isnt the amount of times it happens or the risk chance or even how safe it is.The issue us that if anything bad DOES hapen, however unlikely or "impossible", it would be catastrophic.
Reply
+4
#400 - cgfg (07/19/2015) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor . That is our only hope for nuclear. Uranium is as common as gold so even though we don't burn much we will soon run out LFT reactors burn up all actinides meaning they produce very little waste and thorium is very common.
Reply
+3
User avatar #318 - scorcho (07/19/2015) [-]
fusion is what we need.
fission is ******** .
Reply
0
User avatar #427 to #318 - hellbentcrusade (07/19/2015) [-]
We are slowly figuring out ways to use fusion and harness it. That's a whole lot of power we could use.
Reply
+2
User avatar #349 - sugoi (07/19/2015) [-]
Why not all 3?
Reply
+2
User avatar #338 - somepeople (07/19/2015) [-]
Even if we're saying it's safe because it's unlikely to go wrong, what do we do if it does? How long does it take for the radiation to go away? thumb me down if you want, but I'm only asking questions
Reply
0
User avatar #429 to #338 - hellbentcrusade (07/19/2015) [-]
In the navy we train on accidents to the reactor every week. Our reactor won't put out enough radioactivity to matter but we still have to take the largest measures no matter what. I don't know about commercial though. They probably have a lot of teams standing by for an accident.
Reply
0
User avatar #444 to #429 - somepeople (07/19/2015) [-]
Thank you for your service. At least I know I can trust you guys.
Reply
+1
User avatar #342 to #338 - marno (07/19/2015) [-]
With proper controls, if a meltdown occurs, the radiation can be contained to the facility. Unless it is cleaned and transported elsewhere, it will never go away. At least not soon enough for it to matter.
Reply
0
User avatar #348 to #342 - somepeople (07/19/2015) [-]
The 'never go away' part is what hits me.
Reply
+1
User avatar #350 to #348 - marno (07/19/2015) [-]
I'm sure people will find a better way to dispose or reuse it eventually. Just needs more research. Reactors are great imo. Just not perfect.
Reply
0
#357 to #350 - somepeople (07/19/2015) [-]
I want nuclear powered armor and a spaceship as much as the next guy, and I'm always on the side of healthy science. The future it looking so bright, I just might have to wear a radiation suit.
Reply
+1
User avatar #363 to #357 - marno (07/19/2015) [-]
Ha, let's not be dramatic. The worst that would happen is losing a couple hundred square miles of the earth before the leaders decide it's not viable.
Reply
+1
#445 to #363 - somepeople (07/19/2015) [-]
Not be dramatic? That sounds boring.
Reply
+1
#343 to #338 - anon (07/19/2015) [-]
There is always a risk but scientists are currently perfecting a variant on molten salt reactors which run off of the spent waste of regular reactors. These reactors can not meltdown because they are already in a liquid state. Anti-nuclear energy activists are going off of information from the 80s. We are in the 21st ******* century and the technology reflects that.
Reply
0
User avatar #346 to #343 - somepeople (07/19/2015) [-]
I'm not anti-nuclear, I'm anti-meltdown, so I think until we have a means of goo disposal, we should be cautious to build them near well populated areas. But I totally agree with you that we should use it when it's ready.
Reply
+2
User avatar #199 - olmesy (07/18/2015) [-]
There's an issue in the fact that nuclear power isn't renewable.

www.facebook.com/manchestermegamela?fref=ts

This article from Scientific American claims that at the current rate of consumption, viable sources of uranium would last around 200 years.
Nuclear power accounts for 14% of global power supply so if nuclear power made up 100% of our power needs, it would only keep us going for 28 years.

Honestly, a plan to solve the energy crisis that only solves the issue for 28 years is pretty **** .
Reply
0
User avatar #206 to #199 - arkis [OP]ONLINE (07/18/2015) [-]
maybe on just Uranium, but reactors can use tons of radioactive elements beyond that of just uranium. Theoretically any element with a high enough fissionable index can be used in a reactor.

Your link is to a face book page with seemingly nothing to do with articles by scientific america, and even if it was something said by SA, it sounds to me like they are referring
to Light Water Reactors, which are absolutely ******* **** in a number of ways that have mostly been solved with the Integral Fast Reactors
Reply
0
User avatar #230 to #210 - arkis [OP]ONLINE (07/18/2015) [-]
Ya like I said they are referring to Light water reactors the Gen 2 breeder reactor, or Integral fast reactor its suppose to use less raw material that any other reactor there currently is. The problem is that it was shut down cause namby pambies caved to eco knobs that didn't have a clue what they were talking about and fear mongering Oil companies that felt threatened by nuclear
Reply
+2
User avatar #42 - Titanasgr (07/18/2015) [-]
Actually, I am for literally any type of energy that goes beyond non renewable fuel, be that solar, wind, nuclear or even stationary bicycles strapped to the grid. Nuke energy is safe in an airplane kind of way. Things almost never go bad but when they do it's crazy. I believe that nuclear energy needs to be studied on far more in order to be made more easily harnessed. But for now we have a ******* of energy producing techs that will never be used anyway if the entire state of our world doesn't change. What we should be focusing more on, in my opinion is to make more really energy consuming techs, that our fossil fuel production won't be able to feed effectively, so the world would have to turn towards renewable energy. The system won't change unless it's forced, so lets force it.
Reply
+2
User avatar #13 - TheMather ONLINE (07/18/2015) [-]
Problem is there isn't an infinite amount of money around to spend on experimental power plants. Just because something has every reason to work doesn't mean it necessarily will work out the way you want it to in large scale.
The money needs to come from somewhere. Unless you want power plants subsidized by the state, for anything to happen on such a scale, someone who already has massive amounts of money needs to profit on it.

If the money to build power plants could come out of nowhere, most of Africa would be running on osmosis. But since money is an issue, the only running osmosis plant is the one we built here in Norway to test the technology.
Reply
+1
User avatar #16 to #13 - arkis [OP]ONLINE (07/18/2015) [-]
Money could be diverted from solar and wind projects as well as other power plants that are less effective such as coal oil and to an extent hydro, shutting them down or lessening their numbers. As for working they KNOW it WILL work, by all accounts its working beyond expectations in France of all places. Whats more is Nuclear power is a clean way to produce energy, and with the IFR breeder reactors there is little to no waste and even uses the waste from non breeder reactors. Whats more on cost is it is insanely cheaper to run a nuclear plant when you factor in all the health issues and costs brought on by unclean sources, beyond that with cleaner air and thus greater public health, and when people are healthier they statistically work better thus driving more money into the economy through better productivity.

The issue of funding is a complex thing but I honestly believe, based off the information I have seen and heard for people that actually know what they're talking about, that the costs will be far outweighed by the benefits, and may even produce more national wealth than current systems could.
Reply
+2
#289 - thoroe (07/19/2015) [-]
Speaking as a geological Engineer, I have to say that this isn't the right way to go.

Yes, nuclear energy is a lot better than coal or oil, and should definitely be used in countries like China that are dying from coal-generated smog, but in the long run (which is always how we should think about energy production), nuclear energy is not the best option.

Government regulations on nuclear waste storage are STRICT beyond all belief. New nuclear waste storage sites have to be built with an expected ten MILLION year lifespan before decaying substantially. (Its impossible to do, but w/e), and these regulations make nuclear energy extremely expensive, and completely unable to be bought-into by developing nations.

Solar power generation, however, is, in theory, the second best form of energy generation after nuclear fusion (which is still not possible on a practical level). Once we get solar panel efficiency up past 25% to the 60-70% range, like photosynthesizing plants, we'd be set for a long, long time, not to mention initiatives like SOLAR FREAKIN ROADWAYS.


TL;DR.: As a geological engineer who deals with nucelar energy, i can safely say that while OP is right about people being overly worried about nuclear energy, OP is still a glorious, and incorrect faggot.
Reply
0
#304 to #289 - anon (07/19/2015) [-]
Yeah solar freakin roadways which hasn't been debunked about a thousand times amirite?

None the less, in my opinion we should take what ever gives us the best energy to pollution ratio soo.... what ever the **** that'd be.
12345>>> 
[ 453 comments ]
Leave a comment
<
>
 Friends (0)