The world needs more nuclear power

[acri1]

Came across this video and I think the guy makes a pretty convincing argument and I've always thought nuclear power was viewed too negatively




And this is one issue when I don't tend to agree with the left...nuclear power is probably one of the better options we have right now. Fossil fuels HAVE to go (there's no argument otherwise, not only because of climate change but because there's only enough coal to last for another 50 years or so if that). Renewables would be ideal but at the moment the tech just isn't there to produce enough power quickly enough.

IMO nuclear plants are the only tech we have at the moment that can produce enough energy to shut down a lot of coal plants in the reasonably short term future. And despite public opinion nuclear energy is actually safer than fossil fuels.

Long term I'd prefer things like wind/solar/etc over nuclear, but for now I think nuclear tech is the best stopgap way to phase out fossil fuels given existing technology.

 

[OfTheCross]

I just don't understand what Elon Musk can't put all the waste in a rocket and launch that shyt to another galaxy.

My only concern is the waste, really. Nuclear isn't bad in itself

 

[acri1]

I just don't understand what Elon Musk can't put all the waste in a rocket and launch that shyt to another galaxy.

My only concern is the waste, really. Nuclear isn't bad in itself

It's just too expensive, even for Elon Musk. One estimate I saw was that it would cost about $60 billion to launch all high level nuclear waste into space, and over $100 billion to launch all of it.


Also, imagine if a rocket full of nuclear waste exploded during or after launch (which isn't that uncommon). Let's just say it would be a bad look

 

[DEAD7]

It's just too expensive, even for Elon Musk. One estimate I saw was that it would cost about $60 billion to launch all high level nuclear waste into space, and over $100 billion to launch all of it.


Also, imagine if a rocket full of nuclear waste exploded during or after launch (which isn't that uncommon). Let's just say it would be a bad look

 

[BlackBall]

I just don't understand what Elon Musk can't put all the waste in a rocket and launch that shyt to another galaxy.

My only concern is the waste, really. Nuclear isn't bad in itself

The sun is the basis of most light on this planet. Nuclear in this day and age with technology can work. It’s been working since the 70’s look at France

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

It's just too expensive, even for Elon Musk. One estimate I saw was that it would cost about $60 billion to launch all high level nuclear waste into space, and over $100 billion to launch all of it.


Also, imagine if a rocket full of nuclear waste exploded during or after launch (which isn't that uncommon). Let's just say it would be a bad look

The freed up land and clean water due to rocketing waste/garbage/dead bodies is worth it. Besides, the cost would be covered by the clients...nuclear using nations

 

[hashmander]

i'm for nuclear power.

but from the video. just focusing on deaths glosses over all the problems that come with a nuclear plant meltdown. it's not just those that die. areas are lost to contamination, survivors have to live with serious illness, being disfigured, birth defects, etc. so i can see why some would say fukk nuclear just go all in on solar and wind.

yes air pollution kills millions a year, but that requires diving deeper than the common man cares to go. but they can see dead forests, abandoned towns and buildings and disfigured people and animals, etc. etc.

 

[Hood Critic]

We have an infinite source of solar energy that can be harnessed here on earth, in orbit and many other places around our galaxy -- yet we spend a fraction of our time and efforts researching and developing technology to store and harness it.

We have a secondary source of energy that consumes over 70% of the mass of this planet -- yet same story as solar technology.

Nuclear has and can continue to be useful but considering the source material, the precision needed, the by-product and the fact that its much more finite -- why do we invest so much into it?

Humans strive to be ass backwards.

 

[DEAD7]

The manufacturing cost and inefficiency of solar cells make it less practical than nuclear.

 

[acri1]

We have an infinite source of solar energy that can be harnessed here on earth, in orbit and many other places around our galaxy -- yet we spend a fraction of our time and efforts researching and developing technology to store and harness it.

We have a secondary source of energy that consumes over 70% of the mass of this planet -- yet same story as solar technology.

Nuclear has and can continue to be useful but considering the source material, the precision needed, the by-product and the fact that its much more finite -- why do we invest so much into it?

Humans strive to be ass backwards.

The technology just isn't there as far as solar energy, and we're running out time to switch away from fossil fuels.

I'm all for solar but calling it an "infinite" source of energy is greatly downplaying the technological hurdles.

 

[Hood Critic]

The manufacturing cost and inefficiency of solar cells make it less practical than nuclear.

I don't understand the concept of putting cost ahead of long term investment in our survival as well as technological advancement, that's very short sighted.

The technology just isn't there as far as solar energy, and we're running out time to switch away from fossil fuels.

I'm all for solar but calling it an "infinite" source of energy is greatly downplaying the technological hurdles.

That's wholly my point, the technology isn't there because of the lack of investment of time and research in it. It's very much infinite because the source - the sun - is not going to burnout in our great grandchildren's great children's lifetime. Our lack of understanding in harnessing it doesn't make it less infinite.

 

[DEAD7]

I don't understand the concept of putting cost ahead of long term investment in our survival as well as technological advancement, that's very short sighted.

It’s not your money and you aren’t attempting to secure votes.


Politicians rarely see past the next election, and business owners rarely see past their bottom line.... this is reality. We have to move within it... and within it nuclear seems to be the most sensible.

 

[acri1]

I don't understand the concept of putting cost ahead of long term investment in our survival as well as technological advancement, that's very short sighted.



That's wholly my point, the technology isn't there because of the lack of investment of time and research in it. It's very much infinite because the source - the sun - is not going to burnout in our great grandchildren's great children's lifetime. Our lack of understanding in harnessing it doesn't make it less infinite.

It's finite in the sense that it's spread out thinly over very large areas (meaning collecting it efficiently can be difficult) and availability will vary depending on time of day, location, and weather.

But I don't want to sound like I'm against solar energy I'm just saying that in the short term, nuclear power is the most viable way to get rid of fossil fuel plants. Climate change won't wait for technology to catch up.

 

[Hood Critic]

It’s not your money and you aren’t attempting to secure votes.


Politicians rarely see past the next election, and business owners rarely see past their bottom line.... this is reality. We have to move within it... and within it nuclear seems to be the most sensible.

Keep that same energy sir

 

[Eddie_1100]

In a country where folks still can’t drink their water(Flint) because???


Nah, we ain’t ready.