Current Events > Nuclear energy is the solution to climate change

(+) Yeah! (+)

Not paying 50% more in taxes and eating bugs. Can't anyone see that?

Ok monty burns

It's "scary" now, like DDT.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Exactly

Its also one of the most dangerous. Look up what happened in Fukushima.

It's true but you're going to need heavy capital from the govt to subsidize it (taxes). If it were inherently profitable by itself we'd already have it everywhere.

Look up what happened in Chernobyl. People dress like this now https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/14/ba/d0/14bad0ac6a96b8887935e40e376a2c61.jpg

Years of propaganda from big oil made people scared of it.

kage_53 posted...

Its also one of the most dangerous. Look up what happened in Fukushima.

No it isn't. Fossil fuels kill vastly more people.

kage_53 posted...

Its also one of the most dangerous. Look up what happened in Fukushima.

Everyone knows about Fukushima, Chernobyl, and 3 mile island. Fukushima was mainly the cause of a bunch of natural disasters all at once. The other two were very old and safety standards have improved a ton since then.

Nuclear energy is great, clean, and safe.

Would be fine with nuclear if corruption wasn't so rampant. I mean with how much companies dont follow regulations, I wouldn't be shocked if we had constant meltdowns.

LightHawKnight posted...

Would be fine with nuclear if corruption wasn't so rampant. I mean with how much companies dont follow regulations, I wouldn't be shocked if we had constant meltdowns.

How often do the reactors we already have meltdown?

markconig posted...

Fukushima was mainly the cause of a bunch of natural disasters all at once.

Aren't there going to be a lot more natural disasters going forward?

Whynotboth.jpg

It's gonna take a combination of nuclear, reduction in factory farming, and cleaner mining practices to really combat climate change

Esrac posted...

How often do the reactors we already have meltdown?

Dunno, it only takes one to cause pretty big problems and I dont trust the shit regulation following companies do. With more nuclear power planets, that increases the odds of something bad happening.

LightHawKnight posted...

Dunno, it only takes one to cause pretty big problems and I dont trust the shit regulation following companies do. With more nuclear power planets, that increases the odds of something bad happening.

if this logic was applied to fossil fuels, they'd never have gotten off the ground (no pin intended). It's been a horror show all the way through to now and just may kill us all within a century or two.

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Aren't there going to be a lot more natural disasters going forward?

If we weren't "nuclear bad!" since the 80s, we'd have molten salt reactors by now.
When they blow up, you've pretty much just got solid globs of radioactive salt laying around on the ground nearby, instead of a bigass fire blowing radioactive smoke all over everywhere.

markconig posted...

Everyone knows about Fukushima, Chernobyl, and 3 mile island. Fukushima was mainly the cause of a bunch of natural disasters all at once. The other two were very old and safety standards have improved a ton since then.

Nuclear energy is great, clean, and safe.

Didn't Fukushima also have some issues relating to being old?

Questionmarktarius posted...

If we weren't "nuclear bad!" since the 80s, we'd have molten salt reactors by now.
When they blow up, you've pretty much just got solid globs of radioactive salt laying around on the ground nearby, instead of a bigass fire blowing radioactive smoke all over everywhere.

I saw a design that has a pipe going to a solid salt plug below the reactor. If it melts down, they just release the molten salt down the pipe where it melts the plug and flows into a separate chamber which is designed to shed heat as much as possible. It's gravity based so you don't need power for it to work in case of an outage.

theAteam posted...

It's true but you're going to need heavy capital from the govt to subsidize it (taxes). If it were inherently profitable by itself we'd already have it everywhere.

The regulations for nuclear make it very expensive and also extremely difficult to build new plants.

uwnim posted...

The regulations for nuclear make it very expensive and also extremely difficult to build new plants.

True but which regulations are necessary and which can be removed/reduced?

Someone correct me if Im wrong, but didnt the reactors at Fukushima melt down because the backup generators failed after being overrun by tsunami waters? How hard would it have been to fortify the buildings they were in?