Why isn't nuclear fission power more popular? It's almost as cheap as hydro in Korea and China, new reactors are very safe, very low life-cycle carbon dioxide emissions, and fuel is almost inexhaustible if you get it from the seawater or use thorium.
But instead, we're dumping taxpayer money into solar and wind. Why?
>Why isn't nuclear fission power more popular?
It is a finite resource that has more utility in the future.
the commies took over our countries for they destroyed nuclear for various reasons
What do you got against wind and solar bruh? Come at me bruh!
But for-realsies. It's probably about money. And when it comes to money; the customer is always right. So when the customers don't want a nuclear reactor next door. There won't be a nuclear reactor next door.
Ya get what I'm saying?
I'm sure someone will also post some figures about nuclear's costs, time spent, lack of improvements in efficiency over the years and maintenance or something. I'm no nuclear scientist ask them whenever they post their stuff.
the oil industry funded anti-nuclear hippies so they could stay in business
this had a chilling effect on the whole discipline of nuclear physics, where research is decades behind where it should be
It's because the public, especially the American public, is scared s***less by the very thought of radiation.
Yes, there have been accidents. There are better designs today. And no one in the US has ever been harmed. Still, that fear has driven up the costs of building a reactor to ridiculous levels. The nuclear fuel is cheap, but it's not worth is if you amortize in the construction costs.
France is largely nuclear.
ALL nuclear economies EXCEPT the United States reprocess nuclear fuel, separating the fuel which could go back onto a reactor and provide power from the short-lived isotopes and from the tiny fraction which really needs to be stored away for millennia. So the US has a nuclear waste problem other countries don't.
Part of the problem (though only part) is that the US government, anxious to build bombs and reactors, blatantly lied to the public and hushed up problems. So the public came to distrust official proclamations on the subject.
Radiation is like poison gas. Gas was banned in warfare even though it kills you no deader than having your skull blown off. But there's something frightening about something which kills and you can't see it or smell it or hide behind a wall.
because the only currently commercially viable technlogy is pressurized water reactors which had really bad press, for somewhat justifiable reasons.
also, switching to more passively safe technologies will take money, and due to the above problem, nobody wants to invest
basically, fusion is sexier, renewables have more immediate investment benefit
the only place left that could care is china
Retarded leftists funded by oil and gas lobbies.
Because it scares stupid people. Most politicians fall under the category of “stupid people” and they make the rules.
>oil industry funded anti-nuclear hippies
Is there any source for this claim? I'm genuinely interesting, I've never really thought about it but something about this apparent crazy conspiracy theory just doesn't smell like your everyday friday night conspiracy...
>? I'm genuinely interesting,
Interested*, ffs. I need to get some sleep.
>Why isn't nuclear fission power more popular?
Fracking
>Why isn't nuclear fission power more popular
Because it's retarded. The reactors weren't intended to be bigger than those find in subs.
>and fuel is almost inexhaustible
We run out in less than 100 years with the current retard throw it away rather than recycle policy.
>if you get it from the seawater or use thorium
>>>/420chan/pipedreams
>we're dumping taxpayer money into solar and wind
Because it works. Now stop being a paid shill and fuck off.
>The reactors weren't intended to be bigger than those find in subs.
1. Cite your claim.
2. This is irrelevant to the question.
1) Youre beyond retarded, there are literally dozens of designs created for large scale energy generation
2) No we dont, again beyond retarded
3) Thorium reactors would work if someone put the money into it
4) No it doesnt, solar and wind have no essentially no environmental benefit, and dont generate power if its cloudy or the wind isnt blowing.
Leftists deny reality
>Why isn't nuclear fission power more popular?
I'd say the public's opinion is pretty neutral about nuclear power. Their feelings of nuclear waste are VERY bad and rightfully so. Our nuclear waste management is non-existent. We usually just leave it on sight and our ONLY plan is to keep it contained for 30 years. Usually after 30 years we just forget about it and it it leaks or leaches out we ignore it cause that's part of the original plan.
If we had a waste national waste disposal facility that turned it into inert glass then I think people would be alright with it.
Why bother building plants that are potentially dangerous and can pollute the surroundings for the next 10,000 years when you can just build some solar panels/windmills? Nuclear is on its way out.
Of course, if everyone was willing to use Thorium reactors, then it would be a different story. But since the byproducts can't be used to produce weapons, no one gives a shit.
>t.
Leftists boycotted our solution to nuclear waste because they're media controlled retards
Yucca
Current solar panels are about as efficient as they can be, and windmills generate a joke amount of power
Nuclear is safe and proven. It also has the benefit of generating a ton of power extremely cheaply with easy to access materials
Because muh feels. An actual critizism would however be that the initial costs of nuclear are very high.
Not entirely true
Because greenfags.