I've been in a few required courses at my uni that have talked about energy and how many countries have had protests against nuclear energy. It seems France has been pretty big on nuclear while Germany is now attempting to completely phase out Nuclear. From what I've heard it is safer than most other energy production and has the least amount of waste.
My professors are dog shit at using factual evidence and just talk about the conventions on these matters and about protests and grassroot movements. Is there something that I don't get that is holding nuclear back?
>what is holding nuclear back I can name two avoidable disasters which are the main cause.
Jacob Howard
Normies are afraid of spooky death rays
Xavier Lopez
More people have died from wind energy
Ayden Robinson
The waste is a problem, the law of averages says eventually one will fail, but because of the nature of nuclear power? A fire isn’t a fire. An explosion isn’t an explosion. A collapse, earthquake, tsunami, or terror attack too all have the same result. A radiological event. Maybe we’re lucky and it’s just three mile island. Maybe we’re not, and the next one is a Fukushima, or a Chernobyl. Or much worse. TLDR when nuclear goes wrong it does it to the hilt.
Andrew Foster
Doesn't really matter since they can point at two different disasters. One of which was caused by incompetent staff and the other wasn't made up to spec.
Elijah Walker
price. to build a new reactor you need 5-10 billion USD and then you're stuck with it for 60 years. the nuclear industry isn't capable of building standardized designs either, increasing costs even more. only China can build reactors that are cheap. that doesn't mean it's impossible to repeat what the french did. ie building many similar reactors in a short time but for that you need popular support.
basically the nuclear industry dug their own grave, they just can't build economically viable reactors. and that's ignoring the whole waste problem. transmutation is still a meme
Because nuclear energy breaks the back of some of the most powerful companies on earth owned by the richest bankers, industrialists and royal families who gain, more importantly than wealth, immense power and control over people via gas/oil dependence.
Noah Allen
Modern Nuclear power plants only suffer a meltdown when 2 planes crash into it. And nuclear waste is not an issue either. A 100 years of producing all our electricity through nuclear energy would only produce enough waste to fill a football field. And also thorium reactors create no waste. You're a ignorant scared little bitch who's holding back prosperity.
Nicholas Martinez
And from hydro, dams collapsing have killed thousands
Connor James
>and that's ignoring the whole waste problem. transmutation is still a meme At some point we're going to extract resources from the earth's core. Once we're doing that we'll also be able to deposit waste in the core.
Noah Jackson
This makes sense, they are more than likely the cause of protesting too as they have the most to gain
Liam Baker
Yeah but that wasn't real nuclear energy. TRUE nuclear energy has never been tried.
Evan Baker
Yep, not to mention coal mine accidents or oil spills.
But because there are only a handful of nuclear power Plant accidents with memorable names, those stick out to people despite being far less frequent and not killing that many people.
Owen Roberts
It's on Germany's checklist of doing every last single faggot cuck liberal policy they possibly can. They cannot suicide fast enough.
Brandon Richardson
Public opinion and economic greed. Any company invested in any of the other industries oppose nuclear as they are all independently attempting to gain a monopoly on the power industry. Public opinion was swayed by these companies investing into media to control the narrative against nuclear. There are far larger damages done by other industries which will never be known. >t. Someone who works in both industries
Dylan Gutierrez
I recommend everyone here watch this doc.
It interviews a ton of anti-nuclear hippy libs who had enough brain cells to eventually realize nuclear is the ONLY viable zero-carbon energy source.
Gen IV reactors should be able to reduce a lot of the waste and have a lot more safety features in place than gen II and even gen III.
Wyatt Turner
Because (((somebody))) doesn't like it.
Joshua Phillips
Thorium is a gen V reactor so it's gonna be a couple decades at least until they can start building one of them but when they do they should be amazing
Tyler Sullivan
Does Italy have any nuclear reactors? genuine question
Thomas Johnson
Wtf are you talking about? Just from hydroelectric power killed 100x the people of Chernobyl and Three Miles Island. And remember that Chernobyl was a military grade plutonium reactor made with the only purpose to have fissile material for bombs, inspite to security and logic. And I just wish the moron wasn't talking about the nukes.
Alexander Cooper
No since 1987. A moronic referendum pushed under the Chernobyl optics abruptively stop the whole thing. Back then, one of the plants was 10 miles from my parents house (and still is, decommissioned. Enrico Fermi nuclear plant, Trino Vercellese). The other one was in Caorso, Pavia province. The cool thing is that at more or less 150 miles we have Swiss plants and French Super-Phoenix complex (dunno if 3 or 4 reactors).
Elijah Rodriguez
I got power from San Onofre powerplant in Southern California for 10+ years. (3 Reactors). It sucked when it closed down because my electrical bill went up by like 10 bucks a month lol.
Leo Wright
Will check it out for sure. Thanks for sharing
Brandon James
Because jews, arabs and their boomer golems would go bankrupt. Search for what a 4th generation nuclear plant can do (gas cooling, uses waste from other plants, earthquake-proof...)
Josiah Perez
Because dumb civilians who want to fear monger have ruined the reputation. The US navy has had no nuclear accidents in its existence. It can be done.
The only reason you need that much money is because of the US red tape and hoops that must be jumped through. This is why china is cheap. We started building nuclear power plants around the same time we started building the highway system, and you think after half a century of development and commercial use it's all of a sudden too expensive? Here's the real reason it isn't more widespread, straight from the mouth of an industry insider... youtube.com/watch?v=8VvGw1tkT1Q
THIS
David Nelson
Watch the video from 12:50--14:40
David Edwards
>1982 Things have changed since then, grandpa. people retire, companies go bankrupt or get bought, skills are lost. For a nuclear renaissance some country needs to spend a couple hundred billion USD and build many reactors with similar designs. And noone is going to do that when you can just invest comparably tiny amounts of money in wind and solar while using whatever existing mixture of nuclear/coal/gas/hydro you already have.
Kevin Wood
Damn, the clip from Three Mile Island really puts these "meltdowns" into perspective >pump in generator breaks >reactor shuts down >operators open valves for some fucking reason >releasing radioactive water everywhere >cooling system automatically comes on >operators turn it off for no reason >high levels of radiation released in building
David Hall
>that was 1982, we no longer have the technology/expertise That's the same lame excuse nasa uses to avoid going to the moon even though we used to do it using the same computing power as a modern day calculator, and built the craft with more primitive machining equipment than that which is available today.
And why do you keep saying the industry has to be universally standardized in their designs? The automotive industry isn't that standardized. Different vehicles use different engine designs. The only thing that is standardized is safety...and that isn't a difficult or expensive thing to do for the nuclear industry. Just let the company that makes the cheapest/most reliable reactor win market share. This is how toyota vehicles became so widespread, good engineering, not standardization.
