Picture is of a giant strip mine where they try to locate isolated pockets of ore containing only 1000 ppm uranium. They have to destroy the environment worse than coal mines to extract the fuel.
That mining equipment runs on oil and to transport and refine the ore is also completely oil dependent and extremely fossil fuel intensive.
The byproduct producing nuclear energy is one of the most toxic substances humans have ever created and there is no way to safely dispose of the waste.
How the hell does anyone think this is in any way a good solution?
It's scientific - jobs It's not very efficient - more jobs Requires a lot of research to (possibly) be able to clean up the waste - guess
Tyler Adams
Why does the government insist on 100% employment?
Where does the extra +15% money spent on sundays come from?
Would there be another +50% spent if all shops were open 24 hours a day?
Brayden Green
Is inflation just a cover for ever-increasing inefficiency? Why should money earnt earlier (when things were presumably less efficient) devalue?
Aaron Hill
Peoples needs are over-supplied Too much competition to supply needs has made the process of supplying needs massively inefficient Inefficiency inflates the cost of goods Now everyone must work longer hours to cover their needs This is also less efficient
yea mining is all messy underground mining is probably a lot better than above ground mining, and we should switch to that
Bentley Garcia
>only 1000 ppm uranium That's bretty gud. There are mines in Africa where huge piles are leeching out natural uranium in the 10s of ppm.
Brody Wood
Inflation is just a cover for ever-increasing gov't waste and overpopulation
Ryan Davis
not really a good solution just a temp one until something better comes along.
Ian Taylor
because it gave the uranium for bombs
Nolan Walker
Nuclear energy is one of those weird things where people believe research and development findings shouldn't be implemented because of the drawbacks of the current system, even though though the research and development is largely focused on mitigating those drawbacks. And there are few viable energy generating technologies that don't require nasty mining.
Josiah Young
>even though though the worst tho
Michael Brooks
Nuclear energy really started out as a thin cover for obtaining plutonium for weapons use and therefore obtained all the secrecy necessary to cover up all bad news from mining to waste disposal and all kinds of accidents. And this has remained part of the nuclear culture.
now we have many reactors and the cost of disposing of just a single reactor is a multi billion dollar/euro adventure where larger, heavy highly radioactive cores have to be disposed safely for 10000 years with no idiot/terrorist/miner reaching it. This too is not a good solution. The result then is to keep running the reactors, years and years past the original end of life plan.
Russians, on the other hand, simply dumped old reactors at sea. Thus the Kara sea is one of them ost radioactive waters on this planet. A close second is the Irish sea where who know how many Sellafield/Windscale accidents have been flushed into.
Oliver Ward
>Russians, on the other hand, simply dumped old reactors at sea. Thus the Kara sea is one of them ost radioactive waters on this planet. A close second is the Irish sea where who know how many Sellafield/Windscale accidents have been flushed into.
damn, learned something new today, thanks!
Gabriel Harris
It's not about how bad it is. It's about how bad it is in relation to coal
Carson Jackson
Why do energy cucks shill on this forum, no one here is important, everyone here thinks it would be hilarious if the coal and gas companies went bankrupt.
Adrian Johnson
This nuclear energy meme needs to die. We could literally be using it for space propulsion/long term power supply but we're wasting it for electricity when we could just plop down solar towers everywhere
Christopher Williams
>The byproduct producing nuclear energy is one of the most toxic substances humans have ever created and there is no way to safely dispose of the waste. I see you are still stuck on 1950s technology.
No wait, even in the 50s they knew about breeder reactors and the thorium cycle.
You're just and idiot.
Kayden Lewis
Aren't strip mines for the mining of the stuff to make solar panels also similar to this? And this is only for fission, plus there are better alternatives that could be used, like thorium, but people don't want to have the r&d for it be done because of various issues with fission right now.
Fusion would I imagine be a lot more efficient if we could figure out how to get it to work well because you don't need specialized elements, you could use readily available elements.
It's not really wanting them to go bankrupt but eventually we're going to run out of fossil fuels and I don't think we're preparing enough for when that day comes. Even if we could use wind, solar, geothermal, etc energy for everything, we would still need the batteries to hold that energy, which isn't something we can do well right now. Pure electric cars to my knowledge have shit battery life, and my phone dies within about 10 hours of not even heavy use.
Carter Gomez
>You're just and idiot.
So you're saying its safe to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and don't need to be concerned about radioactive contamination?
Can I assume you wouldn't mind if we designated your living room as the official disposal site?
Evan Reed
nice anecdotes
Thomas Flores
>they have to destroy the enviroment worse than coal to extract the fuel
Nigga pulling rocks out of the ground is the same process reguardless of what the rock is made of. You posted a picture of a strip mine, they do the same shit for coal depending on where the coal is located/whats around it. The reason nuclear energy is better than coal is that it has a WAY higher energy density and instead of pumping polution into the air we breathe, you put it in a barrel and throw it in a hole in the ground.
Landon King
Yes it actually is very safe. Why do you think it isn't?
Jeremiah Morris
>Nigga pulling rocks out of the ground is the same process reguardless of what the rock is made of. You posted a picture of a strip mine, they do the same shit for coal depending on where the coal is located/whats around it. The reason nuclear energy is better than coal is that it has a WAY higher energy density and instead of pumping polution into the air we breathe, you put it in a barrel and throw it in a hole in the ground.
Why do you think the OP is pro fossil fuel?
Sounds to me like OP is blowing holes in the feasibility of nuclear as a practical substitute.
Jackson Reed
Thrioum fission produces very little waste and the waste it does produce is barely radioactive. Its hands down the best method of energy production that we know how to produce at this point in time. The reason why we dont? Its very difficult to make a bomb out of thorium.
Colton Fisher
>Yes it actually is very safe. Why do you think it isn't?
question isn't really about safety so much as it is a question of viability as a feasible alternative to fossil fuels.
Gavin Myers
Its a practical substitute because it doesnt pollute the air and it produces way more power than coal. When disposed of properly, nuclear waste causes zero problems for anyone.
Ryan Howard
>The reason why we dont? Its very difficult to make a bomb out of thorium.
that right there is good to know, thanks!
Jason Gonzalez
So you think we have no reason at all to be concerned about moving from fossil fuels to renewable energy? If we ran out tomorrow nothing would change for the normal person? My state's power is made up of 85% fossil fuels. If we ran out we'd just spend trillions of dollars building wind turbines and solar panels? Wind and solar seem like they would take up way too much space to be feasible for 100% of our energy creation. Not to mention that the sun isn't up 24 hours a day and wind doesn't blow 24 hours a day.
Jonathan Bennett
>brainlets not knowing about breeder reactors nuclear waste is only a problem because it is illegal to convert nuclear waste into reusable energy. maybe if we had more government regulation that wouldn't happen :\
Mason Reyes
>it is illegal to convert nuclear waste into reusable energy I've never heard this but what's the reason for this?
Benjamin Allen
it's a round-about process the regulations regarding how nuclear facilities are run, and the safety protocols they must have in place facilitate the "burning" of uranium and the production of plutonium (as was used for nuclear weapons).
Charles Martinez
which is to say, that cleaner nuclear reactions, such as the Thorium cycle, or uranium breeder reactors can't operate, as it would be impossible to include some of the legally necessary safety features.
Mason Fisher
No the question is the one I'm replying to.
Colton Lee
>what is energy density You try building a fusion reactor. protip: you probably can't
Noah Scott
there is a shitload of energy in that uranium
if we figure out how to harvest it efficiently and safely, its worth it.
Joshua Jenkins
>damn, learned something new today, thanks!
LOL
Robert Campbell
>You try building a fusion reactor.
Meh, building a functional fusion reactor is easy...
Matthew Nguyen
Nah, It's just corporationism, banks, wall street, advertisment industry and all that retardedness of capitalism that lets you earn money without producing anything.
